Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/November

Are photos of flags from a hundred years ago that are no longer in use typically free of copyright?
I have found a photo of an old flag online that I would like to use in an article. The photo is not taken from an angle, and it is essentially a head-on scan of the flag inside the frame. Would it be possible to cut the flag out in Photoshop and upload it with a plain background?

The flag was found here: https://www.carters.com.au/index.cfm/item/609196-an-oak-framed-australian-flag-circa-1910-showing-a-central-cross/

Unfortunately, this is the only colour photo of this flag that I can find without any additional elements included or framing that could be argued as being artistic in nature. UAmtoj (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . This might be a good question to ask at c:COM:VPC since Commons would be the place to host such a file if it was PD. There are two possible issues that might need to be sorted out even if the flag is within the public domain. The first has to do with the photo itself and its copyright status. An argument could be made that the photo is just a case of c:COM:2D copying and not creative enough to generate a new copyright for itself. The next consideration is the frame used to display the flag; like in the case of old paintings that are now within the public domain, frames can sometimes pose a problem because they can be separately eligible for copyright protection independent of the works they hold as explained in c:COM:FRAME. If the flag itself is within the public domain per c:COM:Australia, you should be able to crop out the frame and upload the result to Commons, but you might want to check over at Commons VPC just to make sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You could also ask at the Commons graphics lab; people there might be happy to create a much better looking svg image of this flag if you tell them which article you need it for. Felix QW (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

PD-USGov-Treasury?
Would some others mind taking a look at File:Antonio-Oseguera-Cervantes.png? If the file's description is correct and this photo was first published by or otherwise originated with the US Department of the Treasury, then there would seem to be no need to treat as non-free; instead, it could be relicensed as Template:PD-USGov-Treasury and moved to Commons. The source URL provided for the file has been overwritten, but an archived version of it from February 2017 that shows the image can be seen here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the Treasury makes their own mugshots. It could well have been taken by Mexican authorities upon arrest, for instance, or by any other law enforcement agency. In that case, whether it is free would depend on whether it is a state or a central government work. Felix QW (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I doubt very much that this is a work of the US Treasury. The article on the subject indicates the arrests have been in Mexico.  It is likely a Mexican mugshot which the US Treasury is using. -- Whpq (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Publication" question
I would like to use a photo found here, reportedly taken ca. 1920, of a building that was razed in 1927. However, I do not know the photographer nor if or when the photo was actually published. Am I correct in assuming that I may not use this photo?

As a follow-up, I also have a scan of a postcard of the same building. Is it safe to assume that its having been printed as a postcard constitutes "publication", presumably prior to 1928, and that I am okay to use that scan? Thanks in advance. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Assuming that that Pinterest user is the Roanoke Times, we can take their word the photo was taken in 1920, and regardless of any prior publication, making it available on Pinterest is publication. As all works prior to 1928 are in the Public Domain in the US, then that can be taken as a free image based on the "ca. 1920" phrasing.
 * With the postcard, check to see if there's any copyright statement on it, as if it was made prior to 1977 and lacked that statement, it is also in the public domain. M asem (t) 15:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. Thanks for your help. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Photo taken in 1925 printed in book dated 1962 in UK
I have a book published in 1962 containing a photo of Gertrude Bugler. The caption says the photo was taken in 1925. Is it ok for me to scan and upload this? Thanks --Northernhenge (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "the photo was taken in 1925", says it all. Many websites etc.. will use PD photos and then claim copyright, this is copyfraud. In this situation the photo simply lapsed into the PD, you can use it regardless of what reproduction copy you obtained it from. A PD picture reproduced in a Copyright work doesn't negate the pictures underlying PD status. Just don't scan anything unique to the book (border, caption); and hopefully the picture has not been radically altered from the original where they can claim copyright. -- Green  C  21:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's possible that a 1925 UK photo could still be in copyright in the UK - if the author of the photo is known then copyright expires 70 years after the death of the photographer. If the creator is unknown, then the copyright expires 70 years after first PUBLICATION. If the author is unknown and the photo was first published in the 1962 book, then it will still be in copyright.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * From our perspective at the English Wikipedia, we only take US copypright law into account. Therefore it would be crucial to determine whether first publication occurred in 1925, more than 95 years ago, or later. If it is a formal studio portrait, it would likely have been "published" in the sense of contemporary American law when it left the photographer's domain and was handed to a client. If it is a family photo, the situation could be different. Felix QW (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'll try to find an older publication using the same photo. It's clearly a publicity photo so it would have been published soon after it was taken, but I'll need to find evidence before I use it. I agree it's annoying when recent authors try to claim copyright of older material when all they've done is scan it. That's not the situation here, but it does seem to be an increasing trend unfortunately. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Flag of Macau Municapility.png
The file above is listed among the sources that had been used for a Commons image that itself is listed as public domain. Is it possible for an admin to have a look at whether the image may in fact be in the public domain, or whether its use for a public domain svg image is an issue? As it is a bit of a niche issue, I am posting here rather than at WP:AN, but I am happy to move it there if people think it would be more appropriate. Felix QW (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:PD-MacaoGov
Template:PD-MacaoGov was recently created by, but it's not clear why English Wikipedia needs a local version of c:Template:PD-MacaoGov for public domain works per c:COM:Macao since those works should be uploaded to Commons instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Why not, though? I suppose it causes some maintenance overhead, but then we do already host a huge number of public domain templates for our own use. I agree this one is particularly specific, though.
 * It was presumably created for this image, which is somewhat problematic since it lacks source information and might well be a non-government-authored rendering of the Macau coat of arms. Should it turn out to be freely licensed, that file could go to Commons. Felix QW (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What Felix said and it also likely is helpful for any transfers to Commons. I believe the transfer tool copies the template name over so the result will line up with the specific PD template on Commons rather than a generic PD template which would need to be manually adjusted on Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Slightly concerning is though that in the very general text of the new template a lot of the subtlety of c:template:PD-MacaoGov is lost. Felix QW (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Is File:Amazing Digital Circus logo.png really non-free?
It seems like it wouldn't pass the threshold of originality. It's just a wordmark with some decorations. — Davest3r08 (^ &lowbar; ^)  ( t a l k )  00:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Logos presented in 3D that go beyond simple 3D rendering are more difficult to argue for TOO. Things like light placement, shadows, etc. are things afforded copyright when one takes pictures of free works of art, so that would apply to logo design as well. M asem (t) 00:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Davest3r08, it's 3D and it has a texture. This is unlikely to be PD-ineligible even in the US. The Amazing Digital Circus is American-Australian and the threshold of originality in Australia is extremely low (similar to the UK), see for example File:Country Fire Authority Australia logo.svg which ended up deleted on Commons. Di (they-them), DeviantArt is not a reliable source for this. Please obtain the logo from an official source. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - It somehow got uploaded on Commons. I have nominated it for speedy deletion. — Davest3r08 (^ &lowbar; ^)  ( t a l k )  10:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Already deleted ^ SergioFLS (talk) 02:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

MissingNo.
The current primary image of the article MissingNo. (File:Missingno.png) is a Fair Use image. As is required for all Fair Use images, the Fair Use rationale template argues that the image is not replaceable, as it needs to depict a game sprite. However, this disregards the fact that the only important part of the image—the image of MissingNo. itself—is not a copyrightable work, as it was created by a computer program rather than a human. The replacement Public Domain image (also ), and has templates that explain why it is not a copyrightable work. The unnecessary inclusion of other sprites and UI elements in the current image is what makes it a Fair Use image.

I had previously nominated the current image for deletion for this reason, but @Kung Fu Man disagreed, and the closing administrator @Explicit suggested that the Commons image be nominated for deletion first. I personally think it would be disingenuous for me to nominate an image for deletion if I do not believe it should be deleted (the Commons image is clearly public domain) just so that I can say that it survived a deletion discussion, so I don't really know how to resolve this issue, unless someone else who disagrees wants to nominate it.

I raised this topic on the article's talk page, and was recommended to share my concerns here. Snorlax Monster  07:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll reply there. czar  18:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

File:EAJ-PNV logo.svg
The file has been removed for the next Spanish election opinion polls pages. However, it hasn't on the party's page. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . File:EAJ-PNV logo.svg is a non-free file and non-free files are required to have two things on their file pages: (1) a copyright license and (2) a non-free use rationale for each use. In almost every cases, a single non-free copyright license is sufficient regardless of how many times a file is being used; however, since not all non-free uses are equivalent, a separate, specific non-free use rationale needs to be added to the file's page for each of its uses. If you look at the file page for "File:EAJ-PNV logo.svg", you'll find that it doesn't have a non-free use rationale for any uses other than its use in the main article about the party itself. Since this means the other uses of the file failed to comply with non-free content use criterion #10c, the file was removed from the other articles where it was being used in accordance with WP:NFCCE. If you feel the non-free use of the file meets all ten of the non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP, you should add non-free rationales for those uses to the file's page and then re-add the file to those other articles. However, adding a non-free use rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the criteria that needs to be satisfied, and doesn't automatically make a non-free use OK. Non-free logos, in particular, are generally considered OK to use for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the entities they represent, but trying to use them in other ways or in other articles often is considered WP:DECORATIVE and not allowed per WP:NFCC and MOS:LOGO. In other words, trying to use them as icons in tables in other articles in most likely not going to be considered policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Chirped pulse amplification.png
This file is actually distributed under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, see https://www.llnl.gov/copyright-reuse I provide evidence of this fact on the discussion page of the file. Here is a link to the file page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chirped_pulse_amplification.png 128.12.200.84 (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That image is on Commons and would need to be nominated for deletion there. -- Whpq (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done that for the IP-address editor: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chirped pulse amplification.png.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 07:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

==Discussion at File talk:Royal Military College Duntroon badge.gif § ‎I believe this image is in the Public Domain and should be changed to CC0== You are invited to join the discussion at File talk:Royal Military College Duntroon badge.gif § ‎I believe this image is in the Public Domain and should be changed to CC0. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of non-free image on more than one page
I created a page on the Emblem of Hamas. Naturally, the emblem should be present on that page: File:Hamas logo.png. However, the image is already present on the page for Hamas. Is it possible that the image can be used on more than one page? Or is there just some way to get this on Commons? Thanks Loksmythe (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can use it on your page. It's actually an even better fit for your page than for Hamas, but this is a case where it's appropriate on both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How can I properly add it? Because a bot automatically took it down . Thanks Loksmythe (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As the bot said in the edit summary, you need to first add a non-free use rationale to the filepage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, not sure if I did this correctly if you could review, thanks \\ Loksmythe // (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Trubia A4 file removal from page
This wiki file for the Trubia A4 was removed as a by User:User:JJMC89 bot for apparently being a WP:NFCC violation and said that no valid non-free use rationale for this page. Is this a real violation of anything?, if so is there a way to make it valid? File:Trubia A4 light tank of the Spanish Army.jpg Startrain844 (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a violation of the non-free content policy, which requires a non-free use rationale for every use of non-free media (criterion 10c). I've updated the rationale to move it from Tanks in the Spanish Army to Trubia A4. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 19:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Jo Lindner screenshot from Bradley Martyn`s RawTalk
In the constant pursuit to make my article better I am looking how to get a picture of Jo that is not from his Instagram.

Bradley Martyn has a 94 min video in which taking a screenshot would maybe use some seconds of the video. Could this be considered fair use since it is below 10% and no profits are made off it? I contacted Bradley Martyn himself already but it´s unlikely if order when I will get a reply.

Looking for guidance here... MarvDj (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . While it would probably be OK to use such a screenshot under US copyright law fair use guidelines, it would be OK per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy because non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been set up to be much stricter that fair use. In some cases, non-free images of deceased persons can be uploaded and used per item 10 of WP:NFCI, but such content can't be used in drafts for articles per the aforementioned criterion #9 and WP:DRAFTS. For reference, whether the draft you're working on is ultimately accepted has absolutely nothing to do with whether it contains any images or other media files; so, I suggest wait to worry about adding images to it until after it has been accepted as an article. Once the draft has been approved, then you can come back and ask whether it's OK for a non-free image of Lindler to be used. If you upload and add a non-free image to the draft, it will just end up being removed and eventually deleted if there's no other policy compliant way for it to be used that satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! MarvDj (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Trevor Rainbolt image taken by Jack Bool
Hello. I contacted a photographer (Jack Bool) who has taken a photo of Trevor Rainbolt. His photograph is fully copyrighted, and has been licensed to the New York Times. I contacted Mr. Bool, and he provided permission for the photograph to be uploaded and used on English Wikipedia as a non-free file. However, according to the "Please don't upload [...] any file that is licensed for use exclusively on Wikipedia, or is free except that the free license excludes commercial use"-rule, I cannot upload it. Have I interpreted this correctly? Sprucecopse (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . Your interpretation is correct. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and there are 10 criteria that each use of a non-free file needs to meet for the use to be considered policy compliant. When it comes to non-free images of still living persons, the long standing consensus as been that such images will almost always fail WP:NFCC (see WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC for more details) because it's reasonable to expect that a free equivalent capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one can either be found or created. This could be an existing non-free image whose copyright holder decides to convert to a free license Wikipedia accepts, or it could be a newly taken image that has been released under an acceptable free license from the start. When it comes to non-free content, copyright holder consent isn't a prerequisite for Wikipedia policy and actually pretty much all of the time isn't received; however, when it comes to free images (excluding public domain images) WP:CONSENT is required for Wikipedia to host the file. So, while you did get "permission" to use the photo on Wikipedia, that's insufficient for the type consent Wikipedia requires per WP:COPY which means it will need to be treated as non-free and thus almost certainly can't be uploaded and used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Letter to the American people
Regarding the Letter to the American people by Bin Laden, is this letter "works in the public domain"? Some major commercial news media outlets have reproduced the translated letter in full (per here and most notably here, but taken down for reasons other than copyright). Can the translated text be reproduced (and preserved for posterity) in the WP article? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . Translations tend to be considered WP:Derivative works that are eligible for copyright protection on their own separate from the copyright status of the original work itsef. Most likely the news outlets reproducing this work are doing so under a claim of fair use, which doesn't typically require copyright holder permission. Wikipedia's take on fair use is called non-free content and the use of such content needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This policy has been set up to be much more restrictive than fair use; so, whether the translation can be used might depend on who translated it and whether that person had released their translation under a free license accepted by Wikipedia. Otherwise, it would need to meet WP:NFC which only seems to allow brief quotations of copyrighted content. Finally, preserving stuff for posterity reasons isn't really the point of Wikipedia and almost certainly wouldn't be seen as a valid justification for non-free use as explained here. Moreover, images of written text are generally not the kind of thing that is encourage when it comes to media files per WP:TEXTASIMAGES. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Marchjuly and understand. From this publication, here. Would that doubt about who definitively wrote and translated it help regarding public domain use? Separately, given Wikipedia is a non-profit, how come our policy on these matters is more stringent (i.e. given we seek no commercial gain)? thanks for your help. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Anonymous works can still be eligible for copyright protection under the copyright laws of many countries; for example, take a look at c:COM:HIRTLE to see how such works are treated under US copyright law. As for the second part of your post, the best I can do is suggest you take a look at WP:COPY and c:COM:LJ which sort of explains the rationale of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) with respect to copyright. The WMF is trying to ensure that the content found on Wikipedia (text and images) is as free as possible for others to reuse as they see fit, including for commercial purposes. So, even though the WMF is non-profit, re-users of Wikipedia's content need not be non-profit and can re-use Wikipedia's content anyway they want as long as they comply with WP:REUSE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that and appreciate you taking the time to respond like that. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Assuming that the copyright issues are dealt with and the letter is available for publication, then I would think that including the letter at Wikisource and simply including relevant excerpts here would be the better way to approach this. Wikisource is designed to contain the entire content of sources available for publication, regardless of length. Wikipedia is not really a repository of full text of original content, even when out of copyright; and even when a letter is just a letter, and not a major novel. Mathglot (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Mathglot and will do that (subject to resolving the copyright). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Is this image suitable for non-free use, or is it in the public domain?
Hi, I have found this photo of a coin. It was struck by Shah Suwar, one of the rulers of the medieval principality of Dulkadir in Anatolia. Rulers of this state almost never issued any coins with the exception of the aforementioned monarch, and surviving specimens are very rare, at most 3. So, the addition of this image to the project would be quite valuable in my opinion. I wish to use it in Shah Suwar, Beylik of Dulkadir, and maybe Gaziantep, where it was minted. Although I have read the relevant pages, such as WP:FUC, I am unsure about the copyright status and would appreciate any comments on whether this would be suitable for non-free use, or if the picture could be considered in the public domain. Aintabli (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . This is probably a good question to ask at c:COM:VPC since any such public domain image would be best hosted at Commons. Objects dating that far back in time are certainly no longer eligible for copyright protection of their own accord; however, photographs of such object may be eligible depending upon various factors as explained in c:COM:Currency and c:COM:When to use the PD-Art tag. Coins are typically considered 3D objects so any photograph of them is likely going to need to be treated as non-free content for Wikipedia's purposes and would be subject to WP:NFCC. Such a photo would almost certainly be OK if used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the coin itself, but justification becomes much harder when trying to use the photo in other articles or in other ways per WP:DECORATIVE and WP:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Marchjuly, thank you very much for the links you've shared. So, this cannot be considered in the public domain and may be uploaded as part of non-free use to be displayed only on Shah Suwar (within the infobox) and no other articles. Am I correct, and may I upload it for that purpose? Aintabli (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the best place to try and justify the non-free use of such an image would be in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the coin itself or perhaps an about the currency used in that region at that time. Trying to justify the non-free use in an article about Shah Suwar just because the coin was minted during his rule seems like it would be nearly impossible to do from a non-free content use policy standpoint and using such an image in the main infobox would make zero sense encyclopedically. Even if Suwar's visage appears on the coin's obverse/reverse, it still seems questionable encyclopedically to use such an image in the main infobox (given how unclear it is) and it would hard to justify even using the image in the body of the article absent and sourced critical commentary about the coin and its connection him that would be really quite hard for readers to understand without actually seeing this particular image. Once agin, this is only my opinion and others might feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Marchjuly, bear with me as it appears that I skipped the part you referred to an article about the "coin itself" in your first comment (which you have now repeated; sorry for that). But there are also parts in your second comment that I didn't quite understand. Coins are often used in the main infoboxes of the articles of royalties, where there are no available depictions, so I am not sure if it would be encyclopedically nonsensical to use the coin in the infobox as what you stated.
 * Moreover, could you possibly rephrase the second to last sentence of your latest comment, especially even using the image in the body of the article absent and sourced critical commentary about the coin and its connection him. There are possibly some missing prepositions here, which prevents me from understanding this bit. According to WP:NFC, the use may be appropriate if that image is the subject of sourced commentary in the article, and actually, there are a multitude of sources I can add to the article. (There is even one full paper published in an academic journal that focuses on this coin.or a different specimen.) Is this what you tried to point out: There should be a sourced commentary that elucidates the connection? Would that mean that the article the image will be used in doesn't necessarily have to be about the coin itself? Aintabli (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the poor wording of that particular sentence. It should've been as follows: "it would hard to justify even using the image in the body of the article absent an y d sourced critical commentary about the coin and its connection to him so that would be really quite hard for readers to understand such content without actually seeing this particular image."I hope that clarifies what I meant.Perhaps you can provide an example of articles where non-free images of coins are being used in the main infobox of articles about royalties for primary identification purposes since it's hard to comment on such a thing without actually seeing an example.My comments were mainly about the particular image you linked to and how unclear it is. It's not like we're discussing some like the US dollar or British pound, where the image appearing on the currency is much clearer.WP:NFC is related to WP:NFCC and there are two things (or one thing with two parts) that generally need to be satisfied for tha criterion to be considered satisfied. The first is that the additon of non-free content needs to significantly improve the reader's understanding of article, while the second is that the omission of non-free content would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article. The question is then would adding a non-free image of this coin to Shah Suwar improve the reader's understanding of him to such a degree that not seeing such a non-free image would be detrimental to that understanding. Given the current state of the article, I would say no that, but if you feel you can expand the article to the point where non-free would be justified, then perhaps the situation would be different. If whatever content you add about the coin to the article can just as easily be understood without seeing an image of the coin, then most likely non-free use isn't justified. If not seeing the coin really does affect the reader's understanding, then perhaps NFCC#8 is being met. NFCC#8 can be hard to assess because it's a bit subjective and individual bias can creep in which is usually why concerns about NFCC#8 usually end up at WP:FFD. If you want to try and expand the article to include content about the coin and can do so in way that doesn't through the article out of balance, then maybe do so first before worrying about adding any images. Once you expanded the article, then you can self-assess whether you think a non-free image is justified. Someone might disagree with your assessment, but at least there will then be something to discuss. Right now, there's currently nothing about the coin in the article to justify any type of non-free use, which means there's not a lot to discuss.Finally, NFCC#8 is only one of the non-free content criteria that need to be satisfied, and just meeting it isn't enough. There might also be WP:FREER issues due to the possibilty of alternatives to non-free use; for example, just using text content about the coin or possibly even finding/creating a free image of the coin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will get back to the rest of your comment, but there are no free alternatives, because this image is the only one accessible on the Internet. As I have touched on before, this ruler is the only one that minted his own coins, and his coins are themselves rare to find. One is included in the paper I mentioned, which doesn't appear to be available as a free PDF. Another specimen may have been kept in a German museum. At best, there are 3 known specimens. Aintabli (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Use on more than one page of File:Royal Brunei Armed Forces Sports Council logo.png
File:Royal Brunei Armed Forces Sports Council logo.png is the official logo from Majlis Sukan Angkatan Bersenjata Diraja Brunei (MS ABDB, Royal Brunei Armed Forces Sports Council) of both their association football team (MS ABDB FT), and their futsal team (MS ABDB Perwira Futsal Club). The file image is included in the appropriate infoboxes within appropriate sections of Royal Brunei Armed Forces Sports Council article.

Its football team (MS ABDB FT) play in the Brunei Super League (BSL, or Liga Super Brunei), and crucially, are the most successful team in the BSL. I added the file to the BSL article (its notability being obvious), having earlier updated the file description to justify its rationale for use in the Brunei Super League article. The file was subsequently removed from the BSL article by a bot account - but its edit summary is neither accurate, nor reflects the actual rationale for including the logo depicting its most successful team!

Can I revert the bot edit? Or can someone please clarify in plain English why its justification failed for the BSL article - when other non-free media can get justification for use on more than one page. Thanks in advance. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your changes to the non-free rationale for the logo. Per WP:NFCC, a separate non-free usage rationale is required for every usage of a on-free file.  You cannot just lump them into a single non-free usage rationale.  Having said that, adding non-free usage rationales for the other articles will not likely be sufficient to use the logo in those articles.  See WP:NFC point 17.  These other articles would be child entities and their usage would not be acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you hadn't seen 's response to your question when you reverted them. Whpq's not implying you're acting in bad faith; they're stating that what you're trying to do won't stop the bot from removing the file because a separate, specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided to justify each use of non-free content per WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. Trying to combine multiple of a onn-free file into a single rationale is not acceptable because not all file use is equivalent and the bot (or a human reviewer) will just keep removing the file per WP:NFCCE. In addition, the reason Whpq didn't "fix" the problem was that they felt the problem was not just that file was lacking non-free use rationales for those other uses (i.e. more that a simple syntax error), but also that there's was no way to justify those other non-free uses. Simply adding a non-free use rationale for a particular use doesn't make the use policy compliant as explained here. Now, if you disagree with Whpq's assessment and feel the non-free uses of the file in those other article's can be justified, add rationales for them to the file's page. Then, if Whpq or anyone else disagrees with those rationales, they can start a discussion about the file at WP:FFD. For reference, as Whpq points, they way you're trying to use the file in individual articles about teams is generally not allowed per relevant policy. Again, if you feel there's something different about this case, you should make that clear in the rationales you add to the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Dream's YouTube icon (File:Dream icon.svg)
I'm somewhat doubting this is copyrighted at all. It seems that it could be in the public domain due to how simple it is. — Davest3r08 > : )  (talk)  13:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

using your own cloud for providing documents which cannot be found otherwise in the web
I have raised this issue at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and myself and a number of other editors have raised concerns regarding copyright. Therefore I am raising the issue on this board.

In a recent discussion on Talk:Space Race SchmiAlf has confirmed he has been using his own cloud website at “owncloud.birkenwald.de” for providing documents which cannot be found otherwise in the web. SchmiAlf has provided the following information:


 * All of them are courtesy links to make these documents available for Wikipedia users and discussions. None of them is my own work or own source. In detail this is explained as follows:


 * German influence on the Soviet space program
 * https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/KwbxkbCmynYMfPs
 * This document can be publicly found in the archive of the Deutsches Museum as part of "Nachlass Helmut Gröttrup (NL 281)" (Gröttrup's inhereditary), see also DM archive info 2/2017


 * Talk:Space Race,
 * Talk:German influence on the Soviet space program &
 * Helmut Gröttrup
 * https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/NWbxo4XkpW86WfC
 * This is the transcript of Ursula Gröttrup's commemorative address on behalf of her fathers 100th anniversary (held on Feb 3, 2017).
 * https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/QD7rdfAXcMrfWps
 * This is the transcript of Olaf Przybilski's commemorative address on behalf of Helmut Gröttrup's 100th anniversary (held on Feb 3, 2017).
 * The transcripts are of secondary relevance and not used as arguments in our dispute. The speeches (in front of about 200 people) were recorded and later the personal scripts were aligned to the speeches, approved by the authors and put on the web for interested people.


 * https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/o8TDDTKN3NH3PFr
 * This is the Russian Zvezda document "70 Years Gorodomlya" together with a German translation. The pure Russian version is available via Звездные страницы and was scanned from an original which was handed over to Ursula Gröttrup. (The Zvezda document was handed over as a printed copy to Ursula Gröttrup, Helmut Gröttrup's daugther who grew up on Gorodomlya.) Unfortunately, the document was never published on the web. However, an 2016 archived version of the Zwezda plant news is available here to reference this 70 years event.
 * The Zvezda document was printed with an edition of 2,000 copies (which is noted on the bottom of page 11 together with the name and address of the printing work). It has been distributed to Zvezda employees, business partners and other people (like Ursula Gröttrup). She lent me here sample for scanning. So we both can affirm that it exists as a real printed document.


 * To add for future discussions:
 * https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/24bT4cP4f2xLCYR
 * Helmut Gröttrup's publication of April 1958 "Aus den Arbeiten des deutschen Raketenkollektivs in der Sowjet-Union" in DGRR (also part of "Nachlass Helmut Gröttrup (NL 281)" and now fully quoted in Helmut Gröttrup
 * https://owncloud.birkenwald.de/owncloud/index.php/s/BHp4MDDZZTcGnpG
 * Helmut Gröttrup's 1959 publication "Über Raketen - Allgemeinverständliche Einführung in Physik und Technik der Rakete" (About rockets - General introduction to the physics and technology of rockets) (also part of "Nachlass Helmut Gröttrup (NL 281)" and fully quoted in Helmut Gröttrup


 * Due to Wikipedia guidelines, none of these documents could be shared via Wikipedia Commons.


 * With regard to your copyright concerns: I thought you are interested in finding Russian sources (which Anatoly Zak was still missing in 2012) "to collaborate claims about the extensive influence of the Gorodomlya team on the Soviet rocketry". So it is not a copyright issue, just a question of putting things together under the conditions of fair use.

Copyright concerns that myself and other editors have raised include wp:COPYLINK, WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO. Request other Editors views. I also invite @SchmiAlf to provide further comments on these documents. Ilenart626 (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Gröttrup's documents are out of print since more than 40 years, no publisher is willing to reprint the books or offer an ebook due to missing demand. Therefore Ursula Gröttrup, Helmut Gröttrup's daugther, is the holder of the author's copyright and willing to testify that I'm offering a PDF version of these works on my cloud service with her consent. SchmiAlf (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Copyright infringement in a redirect
At Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 30, there's an RfD for a redirect consisting of the full lyrics of a copyrighted song associated with the topic of the redirect target. Any advice on redacting this, once the redirect is deleted? –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 02:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The text is so short, that it could be used under fair use here. If we try to obscure the title for discussion, it will make it hard to see the arguments or basis for deletion. If you think G12 applies you should tag the redirect with that, so that it can be speedy deleted rather than wait for a discussion closure. Log entries or discussion text can be hidden or blanked if necessary if there was a serious violation, eg an offensive personal attack. But likely not warranted here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Savez izviđača Hrvatske.svg
I don't believe File:Savez izviđača Hrvatske.svg needs to be treated as non-free, at least not under US copyright law per c:COM:TOO US. The fleur-de-lis imagery seems to be considered either too simple or too old to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law and adding a red-and-white checker board pattern to it doesn't seem creative enough to change that. Whether it's copyright eligible per c:COM:Croatia isn't clear, but it seems at least OK to change the file's licensing to PD-ineligible-USonly. If the NFL felt decide to not pursue a claim of copyright ownership over a similar logo used by the New Orleans Saints, then it seems really unlikely that any US copyright court would consider essentially an equivalent logo to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law. The fleur-de-lis is a common element in heraldry that's been around for hundreds of years; so, it seems likely that anything that logo that is essentially an outline of it without any other creative elements would be considered copyrightable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes I think this would be too simple for copyright in the US. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)