Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/January

Current BC Place logo
As requested on File:BC Place logo.png, I managed to extract a vector image of the logo from the stadium's 30th anniversary pamphlet on a PDF file. However, I'm not sure if the logo is above the threshold of originality; while it is currently uploaded here under fair use, I think there is a reasonable case for it to fall under public domain (at least in the U.S.) with its use of simple geometric shapes. Since I'm not familiar with Canadian copyright law and how different it is from American law, I would like some clarification here. CascadeUrbanite (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @CascadeUrbanite: Per c:COM:TOO Canada, "Unlike other common law countries, Canada's threshold of originality veers closer to that of the United States". So if you can make a case for it being below TOO in the US, it should be below TOO in Canada as well. Yee no   (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find the copyright policy for this website
I am willing to write an article about symbolism of animals and I found this Symbolism Dictionary but I couldn't find the copyright policy for it. I found this on the credits page People who contribute to the pages are more active crew members, but even lurkers are part of the people who make these pages possible and desirable. and I am wondering if it means that it's under the Creative Common license. The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's only Creative Commons if it explicitly says so, or uses one of the Creative Commons symbols. -- Red rose64 &#x1F98C; (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Image question
I innocently made an edit here: on the article page Two Fat Ladies. I thought because one subject was represented with the image from their page: Clarissa Dickson Wright within the article, that the other subject: Jennifer Paterson could as well. I am confused as to why it was removed:. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . It's not really a question of guilt or innocence, but rather whether the file's use in Two Fat Ladies satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria listed here. The bot left an edit summary when it removed the file. The edit summary contains a link to WP:NFC. Did you try looking at that page? Bascially, the bot removed the file because it lacked a separate and specific non-free use rationale for the file's use in the article; in other words, the bot removed the file because its use in the article didn't comply with non-free content use criterion #10c. So, adding the missing rationale to the file's page will stop the bot. However, there are other issues with the file's use in that article that probably can't be overcome by simply adding a rationale as explained here. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy does often allow non-free images of deceased individuals to be uploaded and used, but this usually only when the image is used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the individual in question; so, this is why the file's use in Jennifer Paterson is allowed. Trying to use the same file in other articles or in other ways tends to be much harder to justify because relevant policy encourages us to try a keep non-free use as minimal as possible. While it might seem odd that there's a photo of Wright used in the article but not a photo of Paterson, that primarily has to do with how each file is licensed. The Wright photo is a photo from Commons that has been released by its copyright holder under a free license that Wikipedia accepts; so, its use isn't subject to the same restrictions the non-free Paterson photo. There's no requirement that a photo of either Wright or Paterson be used in the "Two Fat Ladies" article per se; for sure, having some would be nice, but it needs to be done in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you disagree with what I posted, then you can see if you can establish a consensus for the use of the Wright photo in the "Two Fat Ladies" article by starting a discussion about it at WP:FFD. I think it's going to be kind of hard to do such a thing, but others might feel differently and agree that it's OK to use. I'm just going to ping to this discussion since they're the Wikipedia administrator that operates the bot that removed the file and they might be able to correct or further clarify what I've posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this image acceptable?
I thought I'd take a stab at uploading an image,, but it doesn't have "information on its copyright and licensing status". I found the image on this website, what do I put if the image is even allowed? I'm seeing many other websites using images from the website. Roundish  ⋆  t c) 21:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * If an image does not have a stated copyright status, it is assumed to be nonfree and a fair-use rationale must be provided. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 21:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added a non-free usage rationale to the file's description page. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 21:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Bangladesh national football team logo.png
I have given the needed rationale and licensing tag in Bangladesh national football team logo.png as like logos usually need but still I received a notice stating that it does not meet the non-free criteria. What Can I do for keeping it on wikipedia and using it on the related articles? Diptadg17 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . Did you see the post that a Wikipedia administrator named left about this at Talk:Bangladesh national football team? File:Bangladesh national football team logo.png that you uploaded in essentially the same as File:Bangladesh Football Federation.svg (there are some minor differences but its pretty much the same file) and the non-free use of the svg file was previously discussed at WP:FFD and the consensus established was that the file's use is only OK in Bangladesh Football Federation and not in the individual team articles. There was also some discussion about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive348. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to start another discussion regarding the file for preventing it's deletation. Where and how I can do it? Diptadg17 (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with the tagging of the file for speedy deletion, you can follow the instructions given in the template and explain why on the file's talk page. Files tagged for speedy deletion are always reviewed by a Wikipedia administrator and the administrator may decide, based on what you posted, that the matter should be discussed further. If that happens, then a discussion about the file's non-free use will most likely take place at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Policy on (dealing with) pirated content
Hello! I'd like to know more about Wikipedia's policies on properly reverting links to piracy, as in this edit, which adds a link to pirating content. As I understand it, the course of action is revert → warn editor → done, but I'm pretty new and would like to know for sure. Thanks! ReadItAlready (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . External link usage on Wikipedia is covered under WP:EL and the noticeboard for that is WP:ELN; however, external links to content deemed to be a copyright violation are not allowed per WP:COPYLINK (see also WP:ELNEVER). Since you've already removed the link, perhaps there's nothing more to do here; for future reference, though, it would've probably been a good idea to leave more of an edit summary explaining why you did so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The only exclusion we allow for links to sites that routinely host pirated material is when that is the homepage link of a site with standalone notability (eg like Pirate Bay). Otherwise absolutely avoid linking to such sites. M asem (t) 03:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information Marchjuly and Masem! I'll keep it in mind in the future. ReadItAlready (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Claude Johnson.JPG
File:Claude Johnson.JPG is sourced to a book published in 2000, but the subject of the photo Claude Johnson died in 1926. When this photo was uploaded in 2012, it was still most like protected by copyright under US copyright law because back then only images taken prior to January 1, 2017, would have been PD-US at that time and Johnsone would've still been living. However, the current brightline for "PD-US" is now January 1, 1928, and Johnson was already dead at that time. Of course, the date of first publication matters, but it seems as if there's a reasonably good chance that this could now be PD and was published well before that 2000 book, or that there are other images of Johnson which can be clearly shown to be PD. Anyone have any opinions on whether this needs to remain non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography knows of two portraits of Claude Johnson, credited to Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, Crewe and Rolls-Royce Ltd. respectively.
 * One of these portraits is available at high resolution from the Rolls-Royce Press Club, but unfortunately there is very little information available there regarding that image either. Felix QW (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-free images in Charles Herbert possibly PD-US-not renewed
File:CharlesHerbert2.jpg and File:Houseboat (film) promotional photo.jpg are two non-free PR photos being used in Charles Herbert. Neither image satisfies (at least in my opinion) WP:FREER or WP:NFCC since File:Charles Herbert 1960s (cropped).jpg is a public domain image being used in the main infobox for primary identification purposes and the photos themselves aren't really the subject of any sourced critical commentary anywhere in the article. Herbert, for sure, did appear in both films and may have felt Houseboat (film) was his favorite, but the reader doesn't need to see a non-free cast photo to understand such a thing. As for the The Fly (1958 film) photo, Herbert might have been in the climatic scene but that's not really enough on it's own to justify a non-free image per WP:CLIMAX. For sure, others might feel differently about each file's non-free use, but I'm wondering whether they really even needed to be licensed non-free in the first place. The description for each file states the files are from 1958 and their copyrights are owned by the movie studios that released the films. Perhaps it possible that these can actually be relicensed as PD-US-not renewed and I'm wondering if any can check on that or knows how to check on that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The University of Pennsylvania has a useful FAQ on searching for copyright renewals: How Can I Tell Whether a Copyright Was Renewed? (In particular, "It's also possible to do a search yourself of the copyright records. For 1978 onward, they're online at the Copyright Office, and below I'll describe how you can search their online records. Copyright records from prior years are now also online in page image form (and sometimes in more convenient form as well).") It's easiest if you know the exact author or title name but I have found keyword searches to be helpful in many cases. UPenn also offers a good caveat: "If you're checking for the absence of a record, you should do the search in a number of ways to be sure; go through the lists produced by title and author searches, and try a keyword search as well just to be safe." I am of the opinion that a good faith online search for post-1978 renewals should be sufficient to change a tag but I am not aware if there is any policy or other guidance on this. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Thumbnail 1490.png ‎
I have a couple of problems. One is I somehow uploaded the wrong image. I don't want it to say "Listen live".

The other, more important problem is that I looked for the option to declare it fair use as a logo and there wasn't one. In the past I have been blocked from uploading until I got everything right.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  21:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you uploaded the wrong image, you can (1) request that the wrong image be deleted per WP:G7 and then upload the correct image as a separate file, or (2) upload an updated version of the current image using "Upload a new version of this file" found in the "File history" section on the file's page. Method #1 is generally better when the incorrect and correct images are in different file formats or they are very different from one another; Method #2 tends to work better when the images are in the same format and there are only minor differences (e.g. slight changes in coloring, straightening, minor trimming) and the images are pretty much otherwise essentilly the same. Currently, the file in question is lacking a copyright license and has been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F6; if you do nothing, the file will eventually be deleted unless someone else comes along and tries to fix it.US radio station logos generally should be uploaded as non-free content unless they so simple that they fall below the US copyright law's threshold of originality and are considered to be within the public domain. Non-free logos generally should be licensed using Non-free logo with a corresponding non-free use rationale provided for each use using Non-free use rationale logo; Public domain logos generally are licensed using PD-logo with information about the file's provenance provided using Information. If you're not sure whether a logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, it's perhaps best to err on the side of caution and upload in as non-free content; the licensing can always be changed later if necessary. One thing about all this is you need be fairly sure of the logo's provenance because copyright laws vary from country to country and the threshold of originality for one country may be quite difference from that of another country.Please note that if you want to upload a logo to Commons, it will need to be "PD-logo" in both the US (where the Commons servers are located) and the country of first publication; this is because Commons files are "global files" that can be used by all WMF projects. Files uploaded to English Wikipedia, on the other hand, are "local files" and can only be used on English Wikipedia; therefore, PD-logo files uploaded to English Wikipedia only need to be public domain under US copyright law because one again that's where the Commons servers are located. If possible, it's better to upload PD-logo files to Commons because it makes them much easier for other WMF projects to use. You're not required to do so, but often local files are tagged to be moved to Commons when it's OK to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to upload the correct file. I got an error message when I tried and I was at a library, so the correct file was there and does not exist on my computer. All I need is for someone to take the file that is there now and remove "Listen live". I don't know how to add the non-free use rationale or anything else to indicate it is non-free because I wasn't given that option before and I don't know how to add it.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems you were able to figure out how to add Non-free logo as a copyright license. Now, all you need to do is go to Non-free use rationale logo, follow the instructions given on the template's page, and then copy-and-past its syntax onto the file's page (just like you did for the "non-free logo" license). One big difference is the you will need to fill in at least the mandatory fields for rationale template's parameters yourself, but there's guidance on how to do so given on the template's page. As for the removing the "Listen live", either a completely new file or an update version of the current file will need to be uploaded. Generally, the way this is done is find the file online, download a file to your computer and then upload the file from your computer to Wikipedia. However, it sounds like you might've used a "shared computer" that you no longer have access to. If you're unable to download the file to any other computer, then you can ask someone else to do it for you at WP:FFU. Just follow the instructions given on that page. One last thing is that if all of the official websites of the station show its logo with "Listen live", then it shouldn't really be removed since that's the way the station has chosen to brand itself. If other websites that don't belong to the station are removing that part from the station's logo, then they have done so for their own reasons that most likely have nothing to do with the station. Wikipedia should really use the logo that the station itself is using and not the logo that someone else thinks it should be using. Is this is the Facebook page of the station? If it is, then it's showing a pretty different logo. Is that the logo you want to upload? If it is, just make a request at WP:FFU and someone will do it for you as long as it's OK to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do with that second template but this is where I got the logo. The Facebook page apparently has an outdated logo. However, I don't think "Listen live" is intended to be part of the logo.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I found a function on my computer that allows me to upload the correct logo, but WP:FFU is not letting me do it. It's asking me all sorts of questions that are impossible to answer. I don't see a way to ask someone to do it either.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, "upload new version" worked, after I discovered what was missing from the template.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the questions at Files for upload/Wizard? The first four are really two questions having four permutations of possible answers. You're definitely autoconfirmed, so really it's whether the image is free-use or not - if it is, you proceed to c:COM:Upload; if it's not, you proceed to WP:File Upload Wizard. Both of these do ask further questions, but they're kinda essential: if you ignore them, or fill them in with false information, you'll get your image deleted in pretty short order. Mostly it's to do with copyright, which both Wikipedia and Commons take very seriously. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No one helped me with the answers to these questions, and I was never allowed to upload. The box could not be clicked on. Fortunately, I had already used another method to upload the previous version and all I had to do was add the templates I was told to above.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this logo PD-textlogo or should it remain tagged as non-free?
File:Masters of the Universe.png appears to be eligible for Template:PD-textlogo to me. Second opinions? Powers T 18:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Images in the Henryk Stażewski article (currently a GAN)
I am currently checking the that the correct licensing tags have been added for the images in Henryk Stażewski, many of which are of paintings made by Stażewski. Could anyone more expert than myself have a look as well, to see if there are any issues with the images used in the article? Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Since I am not an expert on fair use, I only evaluated those images claimed to be in the public domain. The Blok magazine cover was sufficiently old to be relicensed, but I did nominate On the recovered territories for deletion at Commons since the license claimed there doesn't seem to hold up. Felix QW (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * PS Thank you very much for bringing this here, by the way! Felix QW (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Charles Sheeler
Hi, IMO File:Connecticut Barns SAAM-1985.8.29 1.jpg license is wrong. It might be PD for lack of notice or renewal, but I doubt it is a work by a US governement employee. There are other paintings with also a doubtful copyright status on Commons. If the license could be fixed with some evidence, they could be added to this page. See c:COM:VPC for the list. Thanks for your opinion. Yann (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This Smithsonian page appears to indicate that this particular 1934 painting was part of the Public Works of Art Project when Sheeler would have been an employee of the US government. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That was not very clear to me, but then OK if this is sufficient evidence. Yann (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a little more digging to see if i could find more documentation and found a helpful and interesting Washington Post article from 1983: GSA Finds Lost Sheeler Canvas ("The painting, 'Connecticut Barns,' about 32 by 34 inches, cost the United States government $221.85, Sheeler's pay in the Public Works Art Project, a Depression program.... Sheeler signed the painting on the front. The frame carries a brass plaque on the front and a label on the back identifying it as being a Public Works Art Project product.") 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the digging, IP! The careful wording, "Sheeler's pay in the Public Works Art Project", seems to confirm that this was indeed a work for hire rather than simply the government acquiring a painting. Felix QW (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Helen Hooker image
Hello, that person's article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Hooker contains this image: Helen_Hooker.jpg

In response to GA feedback, I added it to the 'Ernie O'Malley' (her husband's) page to lessen the effect of a "wall of prose": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_O%27Malley

But a bot has removed it from there on account of no fair use rationale.

How can it appear on one but not the other?

Someone, not me, uploaded it previously. Is it not suitable for use on Wiki?

Thanks, Billsmith60 (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Billsmith60 As the fair-use rationale on the image page says, it's use is acceptable in the article on Helen Hooker. That doesn't mean it's use anywhere else is ok unless you can establish it meets all 10 criteria of WP:Non-free content criteria.  The English Wikipedia non-free content policy is deliberately harsh to keep the amount of non-free content to a minimum.  It's very unlikely you could make a case for including the image on the page about O'Malley as readers can click through to the article on Hooker if they want to know what she looked like. Nthep (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . I agree with the assessment given above by in that it would be quite harder to justify an additional non-free use of this image in the article about O'Malley. For reference, the bot that removed the file did so for non-free content use criterion 10c reasons. As explained in WP:NFC and WP:NFCCE, a non-free file requires two things: (1) an appropriate copyright license and (2) a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the file. In most cases, a single copyright license is sufficient for policy reasons, but a rationale needs to be provided for each use of the file, regardless of whether the file is used multiple times in the same article or being used in different articles. That's what that particular bot looks for and removes files from articles lacking the required rationale. The bot, however, can only determine whether there's a rationale and not whether there's a valid rationale. That's where human file reviewers enter the picture. A rationale needs to satisfy all ten WP:NFCCP: just satisfying one or some isn't sufficient per WP:JUSTONE. So, even if you added a rationale just to stop the bot from removing the file, it's unlikely a consensus could be established to allow this type of non-free use and the file would eventually be removed by an administrator,  and it would make no difference as to whether the O'Malley article eventually is upgraded to GA-status as explained WP:ITSGA. So,if you're looking for images to eliminate some white space in the article, you will either need to use some freely licensed or public domain (PD) images from Commons or find a non-free one that clearly satisfies all ten NFCCP. One thing about Helen Hooker is that she was born in 1905 which means you might possibly be able to find an image of her that has already entered into the PD. As explained in c:COM:HIRTLE, all photos created by a known author which were first published prior to Janaury 1, 1928, are now considered to be within the PD. So, if you could find such a photo of Hooker, then not only would you be able to use it in the O'Malley article, but it could replace the non-free one currently be used in the Hooker article. If the description of the non-free one currently being used is accurate, that photo will also become PD in a few years, but one that's currenty PD would still be better for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Image Licensing for Heather Zurich Wikipedia Page
I have received an email stating that there are issues with the images I placed on the Heather Zurich page back in the 2009/10/11 time period. All three images were properly submitted to the permissions email and accepted by the permission department at Wikipedia. I still have the email responses. Two of the images were third party provided with their permissions and the third was a picture I created myself. What is it that is being asked for now? Your help would be appreciated.

Jrnhoops (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . Assuming you're asking about the images currently being used in Heather Zurich, I don't see any indication where they've been nominated or otherwise tagged for deletion. I don't know who sent you that email (please don't post that information here per WP:OUTING), but File:HZurichWC5.jpg, File:HZurichAA.jpg and File:Heather Zurich (2).jpg seem OK, at least to me. Perhaps you're mistaking the deletion notice at the top of the article for something related to the images used in the article? The article has been nominated for deletion, but the reasons why have nothing to do with the licensing of the files being used in the article. Since the three files were uploaded to Commons, there's not much that anyone here on English Wikipedia can do about them anyway; however, since there's nothing posted about them at c:User talk:Jrnhoops and nothing to indicate they've been nominated or tagged for deletion on their respective file pages, I don't think you need to worry about them. You might, though, want to take a look at MOS:CAPTION because that's one thing related to the files that is pertinent to their use in the article. It's not a reason for deleting the files, but it's certainly something that can be fixed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I must apologize. The three issues stated in the c:User talk:Jrnhoops page were indeed dated 2009/2010/2011 when the images were posted and thus I took care of them then. Seeing them again (along with the new nomination for article deletion) confused me into thinking it was something new. Thanks for putting me straight. Jrnhoops (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Attack on Paul Pelosi
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Attack on Paul Pelosi § Adding the 911 call recording and bodycam video to the article. – Anne drew  16:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Official portraits of elected officials in Botswana
Would I be able to use the official portraits listed on the Parliament of Botswana website in the articles for each individual? To my knowledge, there is no copyright exception in Botswana for government works. A few already have other images in their articles, but for the rest, could they be used with a fair use rationale? I have virtually no experience uploading or using fair use images. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, . According to WP:NFCI #10, use of non-free images is not permitted for living people. Cullen328 (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that answers that. Looks like they'll have to exist faceless on Wikipedia for a while longer. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . Fair use content and Wikipedia's version of it called non-free content are not exactly the same, and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive. Wikipedia's policy pretty much never allows non-free content to be used in cases where freely licensed or public domain content which can be used for essentially the same encyclopedic purpose either already exists or can be reasonably expected to be created if it doesn't already exist. For this reason, non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per non-free content use criterion #1 (see also WP:FREER and item of 1 of WP:NFC because it's almost always considered reasonable to expect that a freely license or public domain image can either be created or found to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one. Even if a free image doesn't already exist, it's reasonable to expect that one could be created at some point by taking a new photograph of the person. So, if any of those parliment members are still living, a non-free image of them is almost certainly not going to be allowed. If they are deceased, then the possibility of using a non-free one does increase, but it still needs to be demonstrated that the use of the file satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria each time the file is used anywhere on Wikipedia. Finally, as for the other images you mentioned being used in other articles, not all image uses are exactly the same and it's hard to assess them without know which images you're referring to and how they're being used. In many cases, particularly for non-free images, a file might be being used in a way that doesn't comply with relevant policy, but nobody has noticed that yet. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Photo of Rafael Nadal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Screenshot_2023-01-26_184408.png

I don't know how to put a license, please help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyroscopical (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . Are you the photographer who took that particular photo of Nadal or for some reason own the photo's copyright? If the answer to each of those questions is "no", there pretty much no way for this photo to be hosted by Wikipedia and you should simply just let it be deleted in a few days. In other words, there's no copyright license that anyone could add to the file's page that it would make it OK to use anywhere on Wikipedia without first obtaining the WP:PERMISSION of the copyright holder of the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * deleted as copyvio. Nthep (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Bot removed book cover written by the author that is already in Wikipedia!
JJMC89 bot

Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page.

Bot is removing image from gallery of the author's book (cover). The image is already published on Wikipedia. New Goloplo (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @New Goloplo the bot is doing precisely what it is set up to do. Wikipedia has a very strict non-free content policy designed to keep the amount of non-free material as low as possible. Just because an image meets the criteria for use in one article is not carte blanche for its use anywhere else. Every separate use requires a separate rationale to show that the specific use meets the criteria. The book cover File:The Carnivorous Plants (1989).jpg has a rationale explaining its use in the article on the book but lacks a rationale explaing it's use in the article on the author. That is why the bot removed the image. Nthep (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nthep thank you. Any way to add the book cover to the Author article? I will try to take a photo of the cover, I think this should be accepted.New Goloplo (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @New Goloplo Doubtful for the same reasons that the use of File:The extraordinary story of the apple.jpeg and File:The story of apple book.jpeg in the Barrie Juniper are being disputed - the context isn't being established; the reader doesn't need to see pictures of the book covers to know he wrote the books.
 * Taking a picture of a book cover won't get around the issue, the photograph may be yours but the subject of the photograph is still a copyrighted item - so it's still non-free content. Nthep (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)