Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2022/October

Non-free image and free image have the same name
Hello, I'm trying to add an image to the page Kraken Regiment, the problem is that "Kraken logo.png" links to two different images: one is this one (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kraken_logo.png?uselang=en) and the non-free one is this one (File:Kraken logo.png) from Kraken (roller coaster). How I can make the first one show up and not the other? LordLoko (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @LordLoko I've renamed the non-free file to file:Kraken roller coaster logo.png so you should find using file:Kraken logo.png in the article on the regiment should work fine now. Nthep (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks my man. Added the image. Cheers! LordLoko (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Bots and composite images
I'm having trouble with File:Axiom Verge 2 parallel worlds.png, a composite image of two screenshots from a video game. The image itself is at a high resolution, but the two screenshots that make it up are only at around 240-360p. (I can't remember exactly, and regrettably I deleted them from my device after uploading.)

These images are necessary to illustrate one of the game's fundamental mechanics, and I believe fair use criteria are met because of the low individual resolutions described above. Unfortunately, bots can only see the image's master resolution, so they keep reducing it to a point where the screenshots within are barely legible. Can we resolve this in a way that keeps the image at a balanced resolution? I've considered reducing the master resolution to something like 512p, but bots wouldn't understand that anyway. Glades12 (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Add Non-free no reduce to the image and make sure in your rationale or someplace on the file page you explain your attempt to minimizing as much as possible. --M asem (t) 14:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

A company logo: simple design rule?
Hello, I uploaded a Belgian company logo. (Company was closed in 2017) As it's mainly only letters, I was thinking it's ok... Or not?! Thanks, YAOUMFA (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I had the Commons:Licensing "Simple Design" rule in mind here. YAOUMFA (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it looks like Belgium/Netherlands has a relatively higher standard for simple logos to be considered copyright - certainly not Sweat of the Brow like in the UK (not has high as the US, but specifically iterates to unique character, the zipper in this logo not being as such)) So this would appear to be ok to tag as free. TOO is a good place to check. --M asem (t) 01:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Image possibly in the public domain
Is this image in the public domain? I'm specifically thinking about the before 1989 rule. 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 16:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally with a photo like this, being able to see the border and being able to see the back are the easiest ways to verify whether there ever was a copyright notice provided. Under US copyright law, works published prior to March 1, 1989 were required to have a copyright notice in order to be considered protected. If a notice was mistakenly left out, then a claim for copyright could subsequently be made at a later date within five years. The file you've linked to shows the border and the back, and it doesn't look like there's a visible copyright notice in either place. So, it would certainly be OK if first published before Janaury 1, 1978. It's the last part about subsequent registration, however, which is unclear. You could try checking something like https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB to see if a copyright for the photo was ever registered. "Action for Children's Television" gets several hits, but none of them seem to be for works created in 1987. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC to see if anyone else can find out anything further since that's most likely where the photo should be uploaded if it's c:Template:PD-US-1978-1989 . -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! I'll make a post there :) 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷)  - (✉) 07:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Porvoo Communion
Hello! I was just wondering what your reasons might haven been to remove the church logos and heraldry? I don't really understand why, so if you could explain what your reasons were, then that would be very helpfull. King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . If you re-check the edit summary left by the WP:BOT that removed those files from Porvoo Communion, you find that it also included a link to WP:NFC in addition to a link to this noticeboard. That particular bot has been tasked to do mainly two things with respect to non-free content: (1) lookk for non-free content that is being used outside of the article namespace (e.g. being used on userpages, drafts, templates) which isn't allowed per non-free content use criterion #9 and (2) look for non-free content being used in articles which doesn't have a separate specific non-free use rationale for all of its uses which isn't allowed per non-free content use criterion #10c. In this case, the bot removed the files for reason (2) because you or someone else added them to the "Provoo Communion" article withour adding a corresponding non-free use rationale explaining how the use is justified to each file's page. Often a way to resolve this type of issue is to simply add the missing rationale to a file's page and then re-add the file to the desired article. That will stop the bot from removing the file again, but just adding a missing rationale doesn't automatically make a particular non-free use policy compliant. There are actually ten non-free content use criteria that each use of non-free content is expected to satisfy and failing even one of the ten means the use is not going to be allowed. After looking at the way the files were being used in the "Porvoo Communion" article, I don't think you'll be able to establish a consensus for their use in the article. Non-free content is pretty much never allowed to be used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner and trying to use non-free content as sort of "quasi-icons" in lists embedded within articles is not allowed per non-free content use criterion #8, WP:NFLISTS and MOS:LOGO. Non-free logos do tend to be allowed when they are being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the organizations, companies, teams, etc. they represent, but using them in other articles or in other ways tends to be much harder to justify per relevant Wikipedia policy. The bot that removed the files, for reference, is incapable of assessing whether a use complies with WP:NFCC, but, once again, I doubt a consensus could be established in favor of such use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

File:1007wrdu.png
Any opinions on whether it would be OK to convert the licensing of File:1007wrdu.png from non-free logo to PD-logo. It's a former logo of the US radio station WRDU and the way it's currently being used fails WP:NFG and WP:NFC. However, it's bascially nothing more than the station's call letters and slogan plus one other element which looks like a guitar pick. The guitar pick element looks simple enough, but it could also be just enough to push this logo above c:COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Certainly on the border. I would say it falls below the threshold of originality.  The guitar pick is represented by a relatively simple shape with no elements of shading or other complexity. Whpq (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this . It does seem close, but it's not too different from some of the examples given in c:COM:TOO United States; so, maybe it's OK as "PD-logo". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

File:RC Modeler 197311.jpg
File:RC Modeler 197311.jpg is currently being used in Mark Smith (R/C modeling pioneer) uncer a non-free license. The subject of the article may have died in 2011, but that's unsourced and so the article is still listed as BLP. I don't think the non-free use of this file could be justified if the subject is still living either per WP:FREER or item 9 of WP:NFC. It's possible,though, that this might be PD-US-no notice. Anyone have any ideas on how to try and check on that? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I was able to look at a scan of the November 1973 issue of R/C Modeler from which the image was taken. It does have the notice Contents copyright 1973 by R/C Modeler Corporation. All rights reserved.  Reproductions in whole or part, without written permission of the publisher, is prohibited..  I was unable to reliably source that the subject is deceased, but it can be unreliably sourced. Whpq (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this Whpq. Even if we were to assume that subject is deceased, I'm not sure this would meet item 9 of UUI and purpose for using the cover art seems to be more to show him holding a RC seagull than it's to identify him. The image is pretty poor if the main purpose is primary identification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The image in the magazine I saw was clearer and in colour. There are also other images in the article as well.  One big problem with the image is that it includes some of the text of the article and is not just a photo. Whpq (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

DATABASE OF AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS WHO APPROVED QUOTES ON WIKIPEDIA?
Hello, is there currently a database of authors and publishers who approve quotes on Wikipedia? If not, can it be created?

== AUTHOR PERMISSION to use content on wikipedia == adamhochschild AT earthlink dot net wrote:

If the excerpt is a fairly short one, not more than a paragraph or two, and is properly credited to my book, it’s fine with me if you quote it on Wikipedia.

All the best,                                 Adam Hochschild

May1787 (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question would be no. Editors include quotes if they want to. Author permission is not sought or granted, and the quote will be used under fair use. |Sometimes use is excessive, inappropriate and not fair. There will not be a database of these quotes. Wikiquote is a more more organised collection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

May1787 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Dominic Pezzola
This newspaper article has a black and white photo of Pezzola using a police shield to break a window at the US Capitol on January 6, 2022. The photo credit says "court paperwork". Since the court in question is a US Federal court, is it safe to conclude that this photo is in the public domain? Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The photo may have been provided to the court by an amateur photographer who didn't necessarily want to be credited for her or his work. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  00:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It also seems that lots of people were taking photos on that day and then posting them on social media or other websites. I believe some of these were eventually used by law enfrocement as evidence in court cases. Maybe try a Google reverse image search or TinEye to see whether it might have been posted online before and given better attribution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a lawyer, but from my experience, I wouldn't assume PD. The opposite really. Copyright resides with the creator of the work. Several layers here: This is a still from a cellphone video owned by a private individual, so they own the original work, which is also probably in color. The government//law enforcement probably never requested a transfer of copyright or even a use license since it doesn't require that for its justice purposes. If this were a still from a surveillance camera owned by the government (like from an overhead angle) then I would lean yes, PD. You could also, in theory, create an anthology of images or a picture of a printout of the filing, but this is all gray area stuff. Interesting puzzle tho! Hard to get the best pics of these events.... — LumonRedacts 04:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

PD-because
File:Princess Seble Desta holding flowers with Emperor Haile Selassie, Prince Sahle, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and First Lady Mamie Eisenhower.jpeg was unploaded under a PD-because license with the reason given being "the copyright has expired", but there's nothing provided to verify this claim. The file's description states it's a "AP wire photo" which would seem to mean the file can't be one of the various PD-USGov licenses. It could be PD-US-not renewed given that it is supposed to have been taken in 1954, but not sure that can automatically be assumed and not quite sure how to check that. Regardless, an image like this probably should be licensed as "PD-because" since that's basically like saying "PD because I want it to be PD" in my opinion. The is a number (B41745STF) in the photo's caption that might be some sort of identification number, but not sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent Logic with use of copyrighted photos
If i were to use this image in any other article apart from "Tikka Khan", it'd be taken down because the Image is described as used solely to illustrate a Person since the copyright is held by the person who created the Image. That example is exactly what happened to me. But then I see this image used in this article (in the atrocities section) even though its non free use just like the Tikka Khan one. Why is this one being used in multiple articles so freely? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @PreserveOurHistory the image File:Dead bodies of Bengali intellectuals, 14 December 1971.jpg is used in multiple articles because the people who wanted to use it have written a separate WP:NFUR case for each use. The same applies to any other non-free file, you must write a separate rationale for each use. So if you want to use File:General.TikkaKhan.jpg in any other article, you need to write a (policy compliant) rationale and add that to the file page. Nthep (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Except, however, the rationale is exactly the same on each use, which is not really acceptable. The rationale needs to be tuned to each use, and (without understanding any further significant of the image) just a number of dead bodies, doesn't seem to require the need to be used multiple times. M asem (t) 12:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Did someone tell you it'd be taken down because the Image is described as used solely to illustrate a Person since the copyright is held by the person who created the Image. because that doesn't sound correct at all; in fact, it sounds like a mixing together of two different things. While it's true that the person who takes a photo (not the subject of a photo) is generally considered the copyright holder of said photo, there's nothing in Wikipedia'a image use policy that states such a photo can only be used in a Wikipedia article about the photographer (if that's what you mean). If you want to upload a photo taken by someone else that is still considered to be protected by copyright, then Wikipedia is going to need some way to verify that the copyright holder has given their WP:CONSENT for the photo to be uploaded. Without the copyright holder's consent, Wikipedia can't accept the photo under a free license. Now, in certain cases, Wikipedia allows copyrighted content like photos, logos and other media to uploaded without the copyright holder's consent as long the way the content is being used is in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The problem you were having with File:Lt Gen Gul Hassan Khan.jpg was that it was originally uploaded as non-free content and you were trying to use it in Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army without adding a corresponding non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page as required by non-free content use criterion #10c. That is why the bot removed the file and same thing applies to all non-free content regardless of how it's used as pointed out above. Now, what the bot doesn't and can't assess is whether the non-free use would be policy-compliant if the file in question is provided with a non-free use rationale. In this case, the answer is it would not because non-free content is pretty much never allowed to illustrate individual entries in tables or lists (embedded lists included) per WP:NFTABLES and WP:NFLISTS.A non-free photo a deceased individual like Gul Hassan Khan is typically allowed for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the individual as long as it meets WP:FREER, but is almost never allowed to be used in other types of article or other types of ways unless there's a really good policy-based reason for doing so. The first use in the article about the person is already considered an exception to WP:COPY which means each additional non-free use after that becomes increasing more of an exception and increasing harder to justify. There's nothing inconsistent with this because this has how relevant policy has been applied since the non-free content policy was established so many years ago. The bot removed the file because you failed to provide a non-free use rationale for the use on the file's page, but providing a rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the ten non-free content use criteria that need to be met and a non free use needs to satisfy all ten criteria for the use to be considered policy compliant.I saw that you changed the photo's licensing to PD-Pakistan and the photo may indeed be within the public domain under Pakistani copyright law; however, the photo also needs to be within the public domain under US copyright law because that's where Wikipedia's servers are located. Even if the photo is PD in Pakistan, it will still need to be treated as non-free content if it's not PD in the United States. So, for now, I've re-added a non-free license to the file's page and removed it from "Commander-in-Chief" article so that its copyright can be further discussed either here or at WP:FFD. If it turns out that the photo is both PD in Pakistan and the US, then it should be moved to Commons and you can use it pretty much any way you want as long as you do so in accordance with Wikipedia's more general image use policy. If, on the other hand, the photo is still considered to be protect by copyright under US copyright law, it will need to be treated as non-free content for use on English Wikipedia. The first thing that is needed to help determine the photo's copyright status is more information about its en:provenance. The Flickr source provided for the photo does us no good because (1) the Flickr account holder almost certainly didn't take the photo themselves so they can't claim they own the copyright over it, and (2) the Flickr page provides no real information as to when the photo was first published and who it was taken by. If you can find such information, the please post it here. If neither you nor anyone else is able to find such information, then the best that can be done is for Wikipedia to continue to treat the photo as non-free content. Even as non-free content, though, the photo still has issues with non-free content use criterion #4 (WP:NFC) because (once again) the Flickr account holder is almost certainly not the original copyright holder even though they are claiming they are and more needs to be know about the provenance of photo for it to even be used as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * In the U.S., those photos would be protected for 95 years from publication. If it was an official photo of the government, and the government has said that their expirations apply worldwide, it would be OK -- that is basically an author declaring it public domain.  We have gotten such a statement from the UK, Canada, and Australia, and maybe one or two others, but not Pakistan as far as I know.  There is some argument that we should assume such a status for government works, but I don't think there is general consensus on that.   And if it was a snapshot taken by someone else, and published privately, then it's not a government work (even if said person was a soldier).  Copyright can last a ridiculously long time (it's often  the life of the author and 70 more years), which means it's hard to illustrate many 20th century subjects, outside of using fair use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Lawrence photograph collection National Library of Ireland
I would like to use some photographs from the Lawrence photograph collection of the National Library of Ireland. To me these appear to be out of copyright due to their age. This example has the information: "French, Robert, 1841-1917 photographer". The subject matter of interest is such that the photograph dates, at the very latest, before World War 2 (Chuck Meide & Kathryn Sikes (2011) The Achill Yawl: vernacular boats in historical context on Achill Island, Ireland, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 40:2, 235-255, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2010.00297.x) and probably substantially before that.

However, the National Library of Ireland seem to claim copyright. Are they correct or could this be uploaded to commons? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Ireland's basic copyright is PMA+70 so the written or photographic work of anyone from Ireland who died before 1 January 1952 will be PD there. US copyright status which is necessary to determine to upload to Commons depends on first publication and whether the publication was in line with US copyright requirements. There are too many variables at the moment to give you a more definite answer. The important ones being whether it has ever been published in the US and if so when, and how. Nthep (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks - so if I understand that correctly, I could upload the sample picture, or even a cropped version, to a Wikipedia article. (i.e. bypassing commons.) Is it just me, or do other editors find it irritating when libraries and museums imply that copyright exists when in fact it doesn't? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You could upload here but you'd need to add a fair use rationale as the image hasn't been shown to be PD/out of copyright in the US and any image on Wikipedia needs to abide by US copyright law too. Nthep (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi ThoughtIdRetired. While it's possible to upload content still protected by copyright under US copyright locally to Wikipedia as non-free use as Nthep mentions, this type of use isn't automatic and each use of the content needs to satisfy all ten Wikipedia non-free content use criteria. Since Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been purposely set up to be more restrictive that the US copyright concept of fair use as explained here, it can be hard sometimes to meet all ten criteria or establish a consensus for such a thing. The photograph of the boat you linked to above, for example, could most likely be uploaded and used if you were creating a stand-alone article about that particular photo, but it might be harder to justify if you wanted to use the photo in other articles or in other ways because it generally becomes much harder for such uses to meet WP:NFC and WP:FREER. Maybe if you can clarify in which article you want to use these images and how you want to use them, it would be easier to give you a rough assessment as to whether their use would be OK as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The usage I had in mind was in the article Achill Island - adding a section about the Achill Yawl (the boat in the photo). My editing interests include maritime history – particularly traditional small craft. (The story of this boat coincides with another interest, the Highland Potato Famine, which is closely related to the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, who were ideologically opposed to the Currach. ) The article content would be on the numbers of these boats that existed, their different construction from boats with a similar use in Ulster, nature of use, etc. At the end of the 19th century, Achill Yawls were integral to life in this part of Ireland. The nature of the entry would be similar to Deal, Kent – a section in an article on a place where that maritime history is a big part of the place's history. Clearly it would have to be proportionate to the rest of the article, so not too long. I hope this answers your question.
 * I suppose this might be a frequent question, but if the picture is out of copyright in Ireland, who is going to complain about use of the picture in the US? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding your last question, see c:COM:PCP as well as WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED and WP:NEVERSUE. For the rest of your post, if the boat itself is notable for a stand-alone article about it, then a non-free photo of it might be allowed assuming that there are no free equivalent photos of the boat and the boat no longer exists. Otherwise, you may have to find sourced critical commentary specific to this particular photo itself and add that to the relevant section. If there’s just general content about the boat and perhaps how it was used that can reasonably understood by the reader without seeing the photo, then it may be hard to establish a consensus in favor of the photo’s non-free use per WP:DECORATIVE. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

AMNH Digital Repository Copyright
I created the Cretodromia article and would like to include a diagram used in the referenced study. The contents of the study are considered "freely accessible" by the American Natural History Museum's digital research library, but I am unsure if this means the diagram is okay to upload as an image. Here is a link to the study's page in the library: https://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/1583 Yupwewin (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Freely accessible is not the same as freely licensed. The front page of the study states it is copyrighted, and I saw no indication any part if the study is under a free license. Whpq (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

How much similarity before posting at WP:CPN?
Hi all. I regularly come across articles with large amounts of close paraphrasing or mirroring of a single source, and sometimes lots of copy-paste sentences or paragraphs. While I've tagged some newly created pages at WP:NPP, I've never filed a WP:CPN notice for longer lasting or more complicated issues (I usually just sigh, ignore the mess and move on). According to Earwig's Copyvio Detector, the article David Crenshaw Barrow Jr. has a 74.8% similarity with the corresponding article in the New Georgia Encyclopedia, with many sentences repeated verbatim. Is there an approximate percentage threshold for how much similarity is acceptable before being actionable? Should this be blanked and referred to Copyright problems? I don't care enough about the subject to rewrite it at this time. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The material seems to have been copied into the very first version of the article. So all versions of the article have it. Follow the instructions in the box in the section Copyright problems. Editors who work on copyright violations will investigate and do what is necessary. Thank you for noticing the problem. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding logo for People’s Anti-Fascist Front
I'm added the logo of the People’s Anti-Fascist Front on Wikipedia and I added it as the logo of the group. Someone said it was not allowed to be used and it was removed. Then how do I add it when it is not allowed? It is from - https://trackingterrorism.org/group/peoples-anti-fascist-front-paff-jammu-and-kashmir/ Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . File:People’s Anti-Fascist Front.jpg was removed from People's Anti-Fascist Front by a WP:BOT because the bot for non-free content use criterion #10c reasons because the bot was unable to find a non-free use rationale for that specific use on the file's page. The file is still lacking a non-free use rationale for any Wikipedia article which means it is eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F6. It also is currently not being used in any articles which means it's eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F5. If you think that file's non-free use in the "PAFF" article satisfies all ten of the criteria listed here, then you should add a non-free use rationale to the file's page explaining why. There are few ways this can be done, but the easist is perhaps to use Template:Non-free use rationale logo to the file's page. The template's documentation explains how to use it and fill in its parameter. Finally, you probably should provide a little more information about File:Mardan city.jpg which is another file you uploaded. Assuming that you did take this photo and since there seems to be freedom of panorama for such structures or artwork in Pakistan per c:COM:FOP Pakistan, you should provided as much information about the photo as part of the file's description. You can use Template:Information to do this if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Marchjuly But how do most people use logos of militant groups without non-free use rationale? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All non-free content is required to have two things as explained in WP:NFC: (1) a file copyright license and (2) a seperate and specific non-free use rationale for each use. Non-free files lacking either of those things may be tagged for speedily deletion per WP:F4 or WP:F6, or removed from the article where they're being used per WP:NFCCE. You uploaded File:People's Anti-Fascist Front.jpg as non-free content but didn't provide a non-free use rationale for the way you intended to use the file. In order to stop the bot from removing the file and to avoid the file being deleted per WP:F6, you will need to add the required rationale to the file's page. You can do this a couple of ways, but the easiest way is probably to use Template:Non-free use rationale logo. Go to the file's page and click "Edit" then add the template's syntax near the top of the editing window above the copyright license template's syntax. Fill in all of the relevant parameters as best as you can. The logo had to come some where so you should add a link to the website where you found the logo to the source parameter. After you do this, re-add the file to the article listed in article parameter of the rationale. If you do this, the bot should stop removing the files. As for your question But how do most people use logos of militant groups without non-free use rationale?, the only thing I can say is such non-free use isn't compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and not permitted. It's also quite possible that there are differences in how the files are licensed and how they're being used as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. Not all logo files you see used on Wikipedia are licensed as non-free content and thus their uses aren't subject to non-free content use policy. If the logo has been released under an acceptable free license by its copyright holder or is considered to be within the public domain for some reason (for example, it's too simple to ever be eligible for copyright protection or it's now too old to be still eligible for copyright protection), then it's not subject to the same restrictions as non-free content use. Freely licensed content and public domain content still do, however, need information about their provenance provided on their file pages so that their copyright licensing can be assessed, but they are not required to have a non-free use rationale. As for the other files you've uploaded as your "own work", those files should really be moved to Wikipedia Commons since they aren't non-free content and there's no need for them to be local files (i.e. for use on English Wikipedia only); so, moving them to Commons will make them much easier for others to use. Before they can be moved, however, more information about the provenance of each file needs to be added to its page. Once again, the easiest way to do this is probably to use template like Template:Information; just add the template's syntax to each file's page and then fill in the parameters. It's important though to make sure that all the files you've uploaded are you "own work" and not things created by others that you might've found someowhere online. Only copyright holders can release their content as "own work" under a free license and content found online is not automatically free from copyright protection as explained here. For reference, "own work" is defined in a special way when it comes to copyright as explained here and you can only claim original content that you yourself create as your "own work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Marchjuly Thanks and I have one more question, can I just create my own replica of the file and would that count as copyright and also be my "own work"? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * From a copyright standpoint, perhaps you'll find WP:DERIVATIVE (and c:COM:DW) helpful. If you create an original logo from scratch, then you'd probably be OK since you'd be the copyright holder of the logo and could release it under a free license if you want. If the logo you create, however, is based on entirely on someone else's copyrighted logo or incoprorates other copyright protected elements, then things get tricker because there may be other copyrights that need to be considered in addition to the copyright on your representation. Even if your replica is not an exact duplication (e.g. a tracing of the original logo), consideration may still need to be given to the copyright of the original logo its based on if the differences are minor and the intent is to make others clearly think your version is a replica of the original logo. From an encyclopedic standpoint, it's almost always better to use the original versions of logos whenever possible than trying to use user-created replicas instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Washington State University logo
Hi there! File:Washington State Cougars logo.svg was recently removed from the Washington State University page for not having a fair use rationale, even though it is both the logo for the sports teams (which its current rationale is for) and the college itself. How would I go about changing that so that it can actually be used on the university’s page?

MacDoesWiki (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . If there's a separate stand-alone article about the school's athletic department (i.e. sports teams), then that's the article where the mascot logo should be used. Generally, in such cases, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy seems OK in allowing the use of the logo for primary identification purposes in the main article about the school's sports teams (not individual teams or seasons, but an article about all the school's sports teams), but an additional use in a section of the main article about university is almost always not considered policy-compliant. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been set up to try and keep non-free use as minimal as possible, which means the same non-free file is typically not allowed to be used in multiple articles or in multiple ways unless there's a really good policy-based justification for these additional uses. Alternatives to repeatedly using the same non-free file (such as WP:WIKILINKs and WP:HATNOTEs) are generally considered sufficient per WP:FREER in cases like this.A few weeks back you removed File:Washington State University seal.svg from the article's main infobox and left this edit summary explaining why. If the university has a new seal, then that could probably be uploaded and used instead of the mascot logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing is, as far as I know, WSU doesn't have any logos/seals other than the one that is also used for the sports teams. They have a "secondary mark" that's intended to be used with the cougar logo, but obviously that isn't their primary seal. I think that potentially it might just be best to leave the top part of the infobox empty, or use the File:Washington_State_University_signature.svg image as the primary logo in the infobox. MacDoesWiki (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

What would an image released by the Swedish 'police' fall under?
There's an image released by the Swedish police that is used on various Swedish news articles but they all mark the source as the 'police'. What copyright status would this fall under? Parzival2101 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Without a specific image being pointed to, it is hard to give an answer. Assuming that this is being reported in recent Swedish news, then the image is probably copyrighted regardless of whether the photo was actually taken by a member of the police or if the photo was given to the police.  When in in doubt, assume an image is under copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Božidar Magovac.jpg
File:Božidar Magovac.jpg results under copyright, but who owns it? Is this file actually copyrighted? He's been vice-president of Yugoslavia in the 40's, so I added this picture to National Committee for the Liberation of Yugoslavia, but it has been removed shortly after. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 01:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The file is currently being used as non-free content and must meet all of the non-free content criteria. Each usage of the image in an article must have its own separate non-free usage rationale as specified in WP:NFCC.  This image only has a non-free usage rationale for Božidar Magovac.  Although you could add a non-free usage rationale for use in National Committee for the Liberation of Yugoslavia, I do not believe that use would meet the contextual significance required by WP:NFCC.  Having said that, you do have a good question about whether the file is actually copyrighted.  A photo from 1940 in Yugoslavia may possibly be in the public domain, but requires some digging.  I will have a closer look at that. -- Whpq (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * After some review, there needs to be more information about authorship for the photo to be able to make a determination on copyright so default is it is copyrighted. -- Whpq (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Image for a book was removed
The image File:Danilov Violist.jpg was removed from the article Danilov, the Violist despite simply being an image of the book cover. I believe it would fall under non-free use rationale. Is there really no way I can use the image? Jaguarnik (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, under our standards as listed under WP:NFCI #1, the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author, so the cover art had to be removed from the article about the author. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  09:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The file was removed from the article for WP:NFCC per WP:NFCCE. Although it does have a non-free use rationale for the article about the author, it doesn't have one for the article about the book. The bot will keep removing the file from the article about the book as long as there's no rationale for that file’s use added to the file's page. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The rationale for the author article is not valid. The rationale is valid for the article about the book. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A moot point at this time perhaps, but the article parameter in the two rationales on the file's page were linking to the author's article. This is what the bot was looking at and why it removed the file. The same bot also looks for WP:NFCC violations. It isn't, however, capable of assessing whether a rationale is otherwise OK. Sometimes JJMC89 (the bots operator) or others will follow up and "fix" the rationale if all that is needed is a parameter tweak, but sometimes things aren't as clear and further discussion may be needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The text of the rationale written by the uploader was about the justification of the use of the image to illustrate contextual text about the book, not about the author. At that time, there was no article about the book, there was only the article about the author, article which included a paragraph about the book. Which explains why the uploader, despite the fact that the rationale was about the use of the image to illustrate text about the book, linked the template to the article about the author. Now that a specific article exists about the book, the rationale still applies to the book and the link in the template should simply be changed accordingly to link to the article about the book. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the rationale. What we need, though, is the cover of the first edition of the actual book in Russian. I don't read Russian, and have no way of telling which of the several covers I find with a Google Images search for Альтист Данилов might be it. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * User:GrahamHardy uploads first edition covers to replace later edition covers. Perhaps he may be able to help? -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue is the original novel was published in a literary journal, so it did not have a cover of its own. I've found a PDF of the original issue it was published in, and there is no cover- just a title and then the novel begins. While I could find a republication with a special Russian cover, I think the English cover is fine - Crime and Punishment also uses an English cover rather than a Russian cover, seeing as C&P was also originally published in a literary journal Jaguarnik (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One reason we strongly favor the first edition for a book article is to illustrate cultural context. The fact that this book first appeared, unillustrated, in a literary journal, is itself revealing and illustrative. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can take a screenshot of the first page and upload it to Wikimedia then to use as an image for the novel. Only thing is I'm not sure what non-free use rationale applies. Same as the one for the English cover? Jaguarnik (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If the title page consists solely of text it may be in the public domain due to not reaching the Threshold of originality, see Commons:Template:PD-textlogo for more info. Siawase (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

New logo at newly moved Cadence Bank article
Hello, can someone deal with the logo update request as part of this edit request, or at least give me some pointers on doing so? (I'm blind and can't see images). The logo would go to the new Cadence Bank page. Would I be right in presuming the logo they want is this one and would it be eligible to be uploaded to Commons as an uncopyrightable logo, like the previous one? (I presume not based on the automated description of the image my screen reader gave me, but I thought I'd check first). Graham 87 11:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . The logo you linked to above does seem to be the same one as the one linked to in the edit request. The new logo isn't too different from the old one: it's the bank's name in a simple font on the right side with eight purple and green tildes on the left side instead of three lines. It's a bit more complex but I don't think it's enough to push it above the US's TOO. You might want to ask about it at c:COM:VPC just to make sure. As for uploading it, if it's OK for Commons, it should be uploaded there and not locally to English Wikipedia. The person who made the edit request can do this themselves if they want using c:COM:UPLOAD or they can ask someone to do it for them at c:COM:RI. One last thing that you might want to point out is that a logo being within the public domain because it's too simple to be ineligible for copyright protection doesn't mean the logo isn't still protected by trademark. Commons is OK with accepting trademarked content as explained in c:COM:CB. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded it to Commons and it now available as File:Cadence-Bank-logo-2022.svg. You may add it to the article to finish the edit request. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks all. I added the new one to the article and deleted the old one because it was non-free. Graham 87 13:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

copyrights
Is this picture okay to upload on Wikipedia? File:RezaCAFC.jpg Mehrabpr (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * As it stands, no. You have not provided any source information, or licensing, Didv you take this photo m yourself?  -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

List of film memorabilia
A bot removed the photo of Audrey Hepburn in her little black dress, but the same image is in Black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn. What's the problem? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the rationale. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Flickr provides license change history
Flickr has implemented a function to look at the license history of a photo. In the "Additional info" section, there is now a link marked "License History" which displays all history of licenses including date of license change. -- Whpq (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

We did it Joe video
Does the We did it Joe video by Kamala Harris fall under the public domain? I’m asking as was also posted on Twitter, and is alleged to be in the public domain under the “PD-USGov-Congress” template  𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷)  - (✉) 17:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I doubt that is public domain. The video is not a work of the US Congress, or a federal employee in the execution of their duties.  My guess is it is either Harris's husband or a friend who made the video.  The fact the Harris posted it does not covert it into a US government work. -- Whpq (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's clear from her description that she and her husband were out for a run and definitely did not make the video "in the execution of their duties". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair use guidance on article documenting first computer racing game
Hello, I would like to use this article on a Wikipedia page: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PFHiwale4ieMseJh4kg-JLgy4_6_Jx9F/view?usp=sharing

It's a scan of an article from an internal IBM UK newsletter from 1970. I believe it's the only surviving evidence of the first computer racing game, which was shown on the BBC Tomorrow's World program in 1970.

I would like to use it in the following Wikipedia page under the History section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_game

I have no way of tracking down the author or photographer and the BBC program it's referring to is no longer in existence.

Is it possible to use this as I believe there is no non-free equivalent available? Tuesday x (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * We don't cite scans - we cite the original document, e.g. the IBM newsletter. And I can't see how it could be cited as evidence of 'the first computer racing game', since it makes no claim that this was the first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply.
 * Is there anyway for me to cite the IBM newsletter if it's not online anywhere and there are no known surviving copies? All I have of it is the article that was cut out of the newsletter.
 * I'd like to know specifically if the article would fall under Wikipedia's non-free content policy as there is no free equivalent available?
 * I believe it is the first computer racing game ever written because I can't find any evidence of an earlier one but am happy to omit this if the article is not deemed sufficient evidence. I would just like to document that the event occurred as I believe it's relevant to the page in question and would be of public interest. Tuesday x (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be original research which is not acceptable for a Wikipedia article. Whpq (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Would this be considered original research because the article is not verifiable? Could the accompanying photograph be considered as verification? It is of the two well-known public figures mentioned in the article: Raymond Baxter, the presenter of Tomorrow's World; and Graham Hill, the British racing car driver, playing the game in question on the set of Tomorrow's World. Tuesday x (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe it is the first computer racing game ever written because I can't find any evidence of an earlier one would be original research because you are coming to your own conclusions based on your own searches. You do not have a reliable source that states that. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. Please ignore that quote. I'm not intending to put that if the article is not considered sufficient evidence.
 * I just want to know if the article itself can be uploaded to Wikipedia under the non-free content policy as there is no free equivalent available?
 * I would just like to document that the program existed and was shown on Tomorrow's World as I believe it's relevant to the page referenced and would be of public interest. Tuesday x (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally, uploading anything as non-free content just to show it existed is not really allowed per WP:FREER and WP:NFC, except perhaps when it's something used for primary identification purposes in an article in which the primary subject is the non-free content itself; other types of non-free uses or uses in other types of articles tend to me much harder to justify. For example, a non-free album cover image will most likely be allowed for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the album itself, but tends to be much harder (almost impossible) to justify in an article about the artist or band who released the album, or an article about a particular genre or music or articles about lists of albums. In some cases, the album cover might be allowed in an article about the person who designed the cover, but usually that's only when there's some sourced critical commentary specifically related to the album cover's design and how the it's often cited as a representative example of the artist's work. In this case, I can't see anyway of justifying a non-free newsletter clipping since I can't see any possible way it can be used in any Wikipedia article, except perhaps a stand-alone article about this particular newsletter article itself. Non-free images of newspaper articles aren't required to be uploaded as citations to support claims within an article because the newspaper article itself (if considered to be a reliable source) can simply be cited even as long as it's published and reasonably accessible. Moreover, textual content is typically not allowed to be uploaded (non-free or otherwise) per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES if there are alternative and better ways to provide the same information to Wikipedia readers. If you want to upload the image as a possible way of preserving it since you say it might be the only one in existence, then that's not really allowed per WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:HOPEDIAMOND. Image preservation is not really one of the purposes of Wikipedia and you'd be better off trying to do such a thing somewhere else. Finally, there's also possible convenience link problem with this image in that there's really no way for anyone to verify that this is what you claim it is. There's no way to ever no whether this has been published or whether it hasn't been altered in some way if it has. This is pretty much why clippings like this are often not considered acceptable as reliable sources because there's no way to connect them to the publication they originally appeared in. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed reply. There's obviously quite a lot to respond to and I'm not sure how to link but I will try to put forward my case.
 * - I believe it meets the no free equivalent criterion.
 * - I also think it meets this: "where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article." The wikipedia page is about the history of racing games and this describes a game pertinent to that.
 * - It was published in an internal IBM newsletter.
 * - I agree the text would be better as text rather than an image, which could be easily done.
 * - It's not that I want to preserve the image of the article, more the event that the article is evidence of.
 * - Re verification: I was hoping the photograph could be used as verification that the event took place. They are two well known public figures on the set of a well known (in the UK) television program.
 * I agree that unfortunately, due to the time the article was written and the length of time that has elapsed since, it is no longer reasonably accessible and therefore difficult to verify. I have seen two other websites that list Graham Hill as appearing on Tomorrow's World in 1970 though if that helps to backup the article at all. Tuesday x (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The non-free content criteria are rather strict as Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia and we are trying to minimize the amount of non-free content. The image of the newsletter is really being used as a reference and is not the object of any significant sourced commentary that would satisfy WP:NFCC for the inclusion in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it's being used as a reference. I'm not sure how else it can be referenced though if it's not online anywhere or in a current publication?
 * Regarding NFCC#8, the page contains a history of computer racing games and this appears to be the first one documented so I think it is a significant contribution to the page. Tuesday x (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Please restore a PD image (mistakenly tagged as fair-use)
See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Actor_Valéry_Inkijinoff.jpg and this HD post by (ping) for context.

Summary: File:Valéry_Inkijinoff.jpg, a local en-wp file, is a still image from a public domain film (File:Потомок_Чингисхана._(1928).webm). It is therefore itself public domain. However, because it was tagged as non-free, its resolution was downgraded (by bot) in 2021 and the old version rev-deleted. A copy of the low-res file was uploaded to Commons (commons:File:Actor Valéry Inkijinoff.jpg) - with incorrect licensing but the discussion is going to resolve that.

Could someone please:
 * 1) restore the older, higher-res version of File:Valéry_Inkijinoff.jpg (I don’t know how to link to a deleted revision, sorry)
 * 2) transfer it to Commons
 * 3) add the correct PD tag (probably, judging by the license on File:Потомок_Чингисхана._(1928).webm)

(#1 probably requires admin powers.) Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've already posted this at the Help Desk, but I add here as well. If the Commons file is ultimately kept, then there's no reason to do anything with the local Wikipedia file except to remove it from the article and let it be deleted per WP:F5. The two files have different names and a higher quality version of the image can be uploaded as an updated version of the already existing Commons file. If the Commons file is kept, just replace the current file syntax in Valéry Inkijinoff with the syntax of the Commons file. This will orphan the local non-free file, which means it will end up deleted after seven days have passed since becoming an orphan. If you don't want to wait that long, you can tag the file for speedy deletion per WP:F7 by adding the template rnfu to its page or for speedy deletion per WP:F8 by adding the template Now Commons to its page. The difference in names and the fact that there is already a file on Commons means that transferring the local file to Commons will create a c:COM:Duplicate file; so, one of the two will end up needing to be deleted and it's easier just to let the local non-free one be deleted per F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I should be able to handle everything on the Commons end, but I need help recovering the higher-res version from Wikipedia.
 * To be clear, when I said ‘transfer’, I did mean to overwrite the existing Commons file. Brianjd (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have put the Commons DR for that file on my watchlist so I can see when it closes. If the decision is that the image is PD, I'll make the appropriate changes and restore the higher resolution version here on enwp and let you know when I am done. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Mullett Arena.jpg
Hello, I need help with the copyrights of this image on the Mullett Arena page. Dannyphx (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * What help do you need? I see you provided a source, but I do not see that image in the news article you linked.  Did you take that picture yourself?  Did you copy it from that article, but perhaps the news site has updated the article and removed the image?  Di dit perhaps come from a different article and you copy-pasted the wrong URL? -- Whpq (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The photo can be see used here and here attributed to a Susan Wong of Cronkite News. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you didn't take File:Mullett Arena.jpg yourself, you can't upload it to Wikipedia under a Cc-by-sa-1.0 or any Creative Commons license without getting the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder of the photo (i.e. the person who actually did take the photo). So, unless you're claiming the be Susan Wong, the person who appears to have taken the photo, this photo can't be kept by Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion WP:F9. If you just made a mistake and thought being available on the Internet meant the photo could be uploaded and used on Wikipedia, then that's OK since mistakes happen. Unfortunately, however, there's nothing anyone can do to stop this file from being deleted unless the consent from it's copyright holder can be obtained. If you want to try and do that as explained in WP:PERMISSION, you can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thev site is under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.  The footer has a link marked Creative Commons statement below the © 2022 Cronkite News. All rights reserved. Whpq (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that now; however, I'm wondering about this because it makes no mention that the site's content is released under such a CC license. The wording of the "Terms of Use" section seems to imply that they're limiting free reuse to "news organizations", but that they might charge a fee for other types of reuse. I'm not sure that's compatible with the CC statement on the article's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree the licensing is not completely clear. These additional restrictions are not compatible with the CC license. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

New to wiki, don't know if I can upload this image or how, I don't understand copyright laws.
I would like help uploading the following image:

First go to: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Magyar_Warriors/TP4sDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

Then click to preview the book and go to page 390, I would like to upload the image at the bottom of page 390, the image showing the 'Panther' tank.

Can I upload this image to the wiki article about the Panther tank? At the bottom right of page 390, it says "Copyrighted material", I do intend to reference this book and the author and give credit, but I read that you can't upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia and that most images online are copyrighted, and you can only upload your own work to Wikipedia, if this is true, how comes there are still plenty of images on Wikipedia, including about this tank? Surely most images on Wikipedia aren't peoples' own work, especially considering historical topics. Can someone please explain this in a simple way and what I should do? Thanks. ~Victory799 Victory799 (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A picture from a book published in the last century or so is generally going to be copyrighted, and thus in most cases unsuitable for uploading to Wikipedia. For photos already on Wikipedia, you can click on the image and then click on "More details" to see a statement about why it is freely-licensed and thus available to be used on Wikipedia. For example, File:Mounted_Soldier_System_(MSS).jpg says that "This file is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, it is in the public domain in the United States." It also lists the source of the photo. So if you are interested in photos similar to ones you already see on Wikipedia, you can check on their description pages to find the source, and consulting similar sources may yield similar freely-licensed photos. Hope that helps!!  CapitalSasha ~ talk 14:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to believe that that particular image is free of copyright. The Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, has a sister project called the Wikimedia Commons, where people put a great deal of effort into assembling images and other files which are free of copyright problems. For example: photos taken by U.S. government workers in the execution of their duties were not copyrighted, so lots of military photos are available, taken over the decades since the invention of photography. The tank images you've seen may have been among those. I just went to the Commons, typed "Panzer" in the search box, and found 111,661 results. What kind of Panther tank were you looking at (that preview doesn't work for me)? Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  14:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It was a Panther Ausf A (I think), with German crews on the tank and Hungarian crews beside the tank inspecting it. The picture was probably taken by a Hungarian or a German soldier, so I don't think the U.S. government workers non-copyright applies to it. However on the Wikipedia page of the Panther tank, I did see a picture of a Panther tank in Soviet service as well as pictures of Panther tanks in Romanian/French service after the end of the Second World War. Again I doubt those images were taken by U.S. government workers so I'm not sure how those images could be uploaded but they may be in the Commons so I shall look through the images there. Thanks for the help! Victory799 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Google doesn't show page 390 for me either. It stops at page 370. Page xii has a list of sources for photos. The book does not tell which photos come from which sources. However, archives mentioned at the bottom of that page may be worth searching if you can find them. In the comments above, U.S. government photos were mentioned only as example of photos that are freely usable in the U.S. There are other reasons how photos can be freely usable, for example when their copyright has expired. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. It does help a lot! Victory799 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)