Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2024/January

Use of image in public domain - Ann Prentice
Can i use the portrait image that is shown on this website? Or do i need to request specific permission?

Professor Ann Prentice - MRC Epidemiology Unit (cam.ac.uk) Academy-aureus-argent (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)


 * That is a copyrighted image. The copyright holder would need to provide permission, but please be aware that normally, the photographer rather than the subject of the photo is the copyright holder.  See also Requesting copyright permission. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The page you link states "© 2024 University of Cambridge". So, like Whpq says, the copyright holder has to release it under an acceptable license, basically saying "anybody can use this image for anything, including commercial purposes." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just going to add that the term "public domain" has a specific meaning when it comes to copyright law; something being publicly available/viewable on the Internet (even available to download freely) almost always isn't going to be in the public domain unless it clearly states so somewhere that it is. For this reason, it's pretty much always a good idea to assume content found online is protected by copyright even in cases where it doesn't explicitly say so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Do foreign works have to be previously published in the US to be public domain there?
@BD4212 messaged me on my talk page saying "This image was published in New Zealand in 1922, but in order for it to be in the public domain in the United States, it would have to have been published in the United States. Do you have any evidence of such publication?"

Is this the case? (I'm asking about File:Henry Swan.gif.) The c:Hirtle Chart says that works "First Published Outside the U.S. by citizens of foreign nations or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad" before 1929 are public domain in the US and the text of PD-US-expired-abroad never says works have be published in the US first. I'm taking this discussion here, because I've never heard this rule but can't prove it doesn't exist. But if he's right, then I have to revert a decent number of my own edits. And the materials used to guide editors should be revised so others don't make the same mistake. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It is public domain. -- Whpq (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Why will these album cover arts not approve with Wikipedia
Hello, today I am wondering why the files, , and are not good with Wikipedia and they have been removed from their articles Breath of Fresh Air and Cottonwood 2, if anybody knows why then please respond here, thank you.

DallMarl29-1035347 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * File:Breath of Fresh Air (Anniversery edition).jpeg is being used in Breath of Fresh Air, but the other two files were removed from Cottonwood 2 by a WP:BOT per WP:NFCCE because the article parameter of the non-free use rationale on each file's page is empty; in other words, the non-free use rationale for each file doesn't contain a link to the article where the file is intended to be used. If you designate "Cottonwood 2" in each file's non-free use rationale as the article where the files are being used (i.e. using the syntax Cottonwood 2), the bot should stop removing the files. However, this only resolves the issue with the bot, and it doesn't automatically make the non-free use policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. Another editor could still challenge the non-free use of those alternative album covers if they feel it's not policy compliant. For example, File:Cottonwood 2 (Deluxe).jpeg and File:NLE Choppa - Cottonwood 2.png look to be essentially the same album cover, except that the former has the word "Deluxe" added to it. This similarity between the two versions makes the use of the "Deluxe" cover seem non-policy compliant and unnecessary per WP:NFCC, WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC because it's more than sufficient to simply use reliably sourced text to describe the difference between the two; in other words, the reader doesn't need to see both covers to understand that one has the word "Deluxe" and the other doesn't. For that reason, it might be hard to establish a consensus in favor of using the "Deluxe" album cover in the article at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright of cover of Antiquity
Antiquity is a journal which has been around since 1927; it is published in England but circulated broadly. Could anyone please advise as to the copyright of the cover of the December 2023 issue? As I see it, it has three elements: (1) a variety of text, (2) photographs of gold objects, and (3) a sketch of Stonehenge. As to the first, it appears too simple to be under copyright. As to the second, they are clearly under copyright, although it may be possible to work with the copyright holder (see this, which is the bottom left image). The third is where I'm not sure. The design came into use sometime between 1958 (see here) and 1960 (see here), although probably in 1958, when Glyn Daniel took over as editor from O. G. S. Crawford (who died in November 1957). I don't know who drew the image. Could someone please weigh in? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If first published in the UK around 1958, the sketch would probably be covered by URAA restoration, which would mean it's copyrighted under US law until around 2053. Toohool (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Is the reason why the URAA might apply that the image may not have been not under copyright in the US in 1996? If so, what would have conceivably brought the image into copyright in the US—does it matter that Antiquity is distributed in the US, or would it have needed to go through a formal process? Separately, the pre-1958 illustration of Stonehenge that the journal used (linked above in the "see here" parenthetical after 1958) is substantially similar, and was used from the journal's inception in 1927. Is the similarity sufficient to have publication be traced back to 1927 instead of 1958? --Usernameunique (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Most foreign works published back then forfeited their US copyright by being published without a US-compliant copyright notice. URAA automatically restored the copyright for all eligible works in 1996, no formal process needed. If the drawing was published in the US within 30 days of its first publication elsewhere, then it wouldn't have been URAA-eligible. But that can be hard to demonstrate if the work only lists a UK publisher. As for the 1927 version of the drawing, it's similar at a glance, but quite different on closer examination. I'd say there's certainly enough originality in the later version to qualify for a new copyright. Toohool (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, . What counts in terms of US publication? That is, would it need to be separately printed in the US, or would being mailed to US subscribers of the journal count? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The definition of publication in 17 USC § 101 doesn't clearly answer that question, and I haven't seen any court case that has taken it up. Ricketson's International Copyright, a leading treatise, argues that mere distribution of copies within a country, such as by mail order, doesn't qualify as publication, rather that there must be "some centre (or centres) for distribution within that country" (pp. 268-269). (He's discussing the definition under the Berne Convention, not under US law, but one can surmise that US courts would try to harmonize the interpretations, since the statute is meant to satisfy the US's obligations under Berne). So, it's not entirely clear, but seems safer under the precautionary principle to assume that this would not have been considered publication in the US. Toohool (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again ; those are very helpful. The statutory definition appears to be broader than Ricketson's interpretation of the Berne Convention; it requires that publication be made "to the public", but sets no limits on the method of publication besides that it entail "the distribution of copies ... of a work ... by sale or other transfer of ownership." If Antiquity was sold from the UK to a member of the public in the US, it meets that definition. (There is no question that it did direct sales at the US; this 1963 volume, for example—the earliest for which I could find front matter online—indicates that an annual subscription is "ONE POUND TEN SHILLINGS Sterling, or FIVE DOLLARS".) Likewise, the second sentence of the definition suggests that a US-based central distribution system is an additional method of publication, not a required method: "The offering to distribute copies ... to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution ... constitutes publication."
 * Some further support for the broader definition is found in Section 1905.1] of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices (which I found while researching the definition in 17 U.S.C. § 101). The examples of publication it gives are unmistakably broad, such as "Distributing copies of a leaflet on a street corner". But it also mentions that "Mailing copies of a catalog to potential customers constitutes publication of that catalog and any unpublished works revealed in that work", without any requirements as to from where the mailing must originate.
 * Unless you see it differently, I think we can assume that the Stonehenge image was published in the US between 1958 and 1960 (probably 1958). If I'm reading this chart correctly, that would mean it has potential protection through 2053, but only if the original copyright was (a) perfected, and (b) renewed around 1986. Does that seem right to you? --Usernameunique (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt that mailing copies of the journal to a list of subscribers was an act of publication. What is unclear is whether that publication is deemed to occur in the country of mailing, or, as you imply, simultaneously in the country of mailing and all the destination countries. Ricketson leans towards the former, with an argument that has stood since 1938, based on the underlying intent of preventing "back-door entry" to Berne protection. I would trust that reasoning over one based simply on parsing an ambiguous statutory definition, so no, I wouldn't assume that the image was published in the US. Toohool (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"Freedom of panorama (US only)" and the Berne convention
Can someone point me to legal precedent justifying our template Freedom of panorama (US only), under which images that would clearly be copyvio in some other country (such as France in which photos of buildings are subject to the copyright of the architect) are claimed to be ok to host on Wikipedia because it respects only US copyrights? The images themselves were taken in that other country and, as such, clearly fall under a non-free copyright, the copyright of the architect. There is no argument that the images are PD; they are copyrighted, the question is merely whether the copyright is solely to the photographer or whether it is a derivative work of the copyright of the architect.

Our article Berne Convention states that the US, as a participant, is required to respect the copyrights of other Berne convention countries. As far as I know it has no obvious exception for copyrights of things that other Berne Convention signatories think should not be copyrighted; as long as it is a valid copyright in its originating country, it is a valid copyright. But I am no legal scholar, so maybe there is some subtlety that I am missing. My lack of understanding of this piece of our copyright policy is making it difficult for me to understand what kinds of images are ok for this template and what are not.

What I am not looking for: people reiterating what the template states without providing convincing sourcing demonstrating that what it states is actually sound legal advice. I know what it states. I just don't understand why it is allowed. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Using Commons' page on FoP at Freedom of panorama, the WMF projects appear to take the lex loci delicti approach that was implied by the EU's "Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations". This paper goes into what that means, but that basically means that WP projects can take a reason copyright stance. That means for Commons, the photograph must strictly pass all copyright requirements, but projects like en.wiki can use cases where US law would allow for free redistribution of the image even if the object in the photo is copyrighted in a country w/o freedom of panorama for that object. M asem  (t) 05:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand that it means that we can host images that are free or freely licensed according to all applicable pieces of US law but unfree according to someone else's law. What I don't understand is why this applies to images that are unfreely copyrighted under a Berne convention country's law. Is the Berne convention not an applicable piece of US law? Is it maybe that the Berne convention is not actually about transferring the copyright of another country to the US, but rather about creating a separate copyright in the US for creators in that other country, and therefore that it falls under the same rules as all other US copyrights? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The way we have seemed to operate through the years is this - A photograph of a building has two potential copyrights: the building's designer/architect, and the photographer. A building may be copyrighted and have zero FoP in the country it stands, but the photographer would be bound by the country they live in, so a US photographer could say that they have opted to license the photo freely under an appropriate license, given that under US law there is no copyright protections for buildings. (In contrast, a US photographer taking a picture of a permanently-installed work of art in a different country where such art does not have FOP, the photographer would not be able to release it freely because there is still the copyright on the artwork.) M asem (t) 05:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm trying to understand the theoretical basis for how we can operate this way, not a description of how we operate. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why I linked to Commons and that paper, in that it is asserted there (and would be expected to apply here) that the lex loci delicti principle applies for international aspects of copyright. The origin of where that came about was not just pulled from nowhere on Commons, there was a valid reason to take it, though nothing has yet been established in case law to say whether that is 100% legally right or not. M asem (t) 13:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that a foreign copyright holder is afforded the same copyright protections as a US copyright holder. A US architect may hold the copyright to the design of a building but US law allows for freedom of panorama for that building.  As such, a foreign architects rights in the US would be the same.  The architect holds the copyright for the design of the building but freedom of panorama applies.  IANAL and that understanding may not be correct. -- Whpq (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Each country makes its own laws and its laws are the laws of the land, they are the laws that apply in that country, not the laws of another country. France does not impose the laws of France to rule what people do in the United States. And the United States does not impose the laws of the United States to rule what people do in France (in theory) . British citizens who own British automobiles, when they drive those automobiles in France, they must drive on the right side of the road, in compliance with the law of France, not on the left side of the road as in the British law. They must comply with the law of the land where they are actually using the car, not with the law of the country where the car was made. The same principle applies to the use of photographs and other works. Each country has its own copyright law. One must use a work in compliance with the copyright law of the land where one uses it. When using a work in the United States, the copyright law that applies to that use in the United States is the copyright law of the United States. When using that same work in France, the copyright law that applies to that use in France is the copyright law of France. Same principle in all countries where one might use the work. The use is ruled by the law of the country where it is used. The Berne convention fully respects that principle. See in particular its art. 5 par. (2) ("... shall be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed") and art. 7 par. (8). Also the numerous instances of "It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries ...". For example, the convention requires that the member countries have into their laws a copyright duration for some types of works that are consistent with a minimal duration (e.g. art. 7, par. (4), requiring minimum 25 years for artistic photographs), but that does not change the rule that each use of a work is ruled by the law of the country where that use takes place. The non-discrimination provisions of the convention mean that authors and works are treated equally under the law of the country of use. It does not mean that the country of use must discriminate and apply the laws of other countries. In other words, what Whpq wrote above. The permission of photographic reproduction of buildings is probably justified by art. 9 par. (2) of the convention.  -- Asclepias (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A few points that might shed some light: Toohool (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A copyright infringement lawsuit about an image of a French building on Wikipedia would be heard in the US under US copyright law. (YMMV if you are an editor uploading an image from within France.) 17 USC § 120(a) is pretty clear, an architect's copyright doesn't include the right to restrict photographs of a building. It doesn't have an exception like "unless required by international copyright agreement".
 * The Berne Convention is not a self-executing treaty under US law (See analysis here), so it is not "the law of the land", except to the extent that Congress has adopted it as law. This happened primarily via the Berne Convention Implementation Act, which specifies in section 3(a) that the Berne Convention itself cannot be the basis of a lawsuit. So, if Berne did require the US to honor France's non-acceptance of FoP for buildings, then the US would be in breach of its treaty obligations, but it wouldn't support a lawsuit.
 * Berne explicitly allows for limitations along the lines of FoP in art. 9, par. 2: "It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author." Aside from copyright duration, the main thrust of Berne is that countries must extend the same protection to foreign works as they extend to domestic works, not the same protection that the foreign country would extend to the work.

Sketches of people
So I came across the article Antoine Argoud, which has a hand drawn sketch of him as his image in the infobox. Does this sketch mean that uploading non-free content of him would violate NFCC#1, which stipulates that there must be no free equivalent? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @ARandomName123 From what I can see on Commons, that is a WP:USERG image, not one with any WP-relevance, though I've seen worse. I don't think we should use it. It's not "equivalent" to a photo per WP-policy. Talk:Asquith_Xavier may be of help, and perhaps Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks, I'll replace the sketch with a photo then. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Ondacero.svg potentially free?
Could this file be eligible for PD-Textlogo or PD-ineligible-USonly? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

East Ayrshire council coat of arms on Subdivisions of Scotland article
A bot keeps removing the East Ayrshire Council Coat of arms from the Subdivisions of Scotland page. I am convinced that the coat of arms is in the public domain, and that the original uploader gave the incorrect copyright information. Also, even if the image is copyright, I am sure that what I am trying to do with it is fair use. Could someone sort this bot out for me, as I don’t like its attitude to me. Thank you. Pablothepenguin (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi . Assessing the copyright status of coats of arms can be tricky because there are typically two elements to consider. The first element is called the "blazon", which is the written description/definition of the coat of arms. The second element is called the "emblazonment", which is someone's visual representation/rendition of a blazon. Since a blazon is, for the most part, nothing more than written text that defines the various elements of a coat of arms and how they are combined together, it is generally not considered to be eligible for copyright protection under the copyright laws of most countries. The blazon pretty much remains the same for all and anyone can, in principle, create their own emblazonment based upon it. An emblazonment, on the other hand, is generally someone's creative visual rendition of a coat of arms and can be eligible for copyright protection depending upon the copyright laws of the country it's subject to. Of course, there are some emblazonments that might be so old or so simple that they are within in the public domain, but it's probably relatively best to assume that the emblazonment of any fairly complex coat of arms found online is going to be eligible for copyright protection and that copyright is going to be owned by the emblazonment's creator. So, it's quite possible that the emblazonment of the coat of arms for East Ayrshire Council that was uploaded to Wikipedia is still protected by copyright. As to whether a copyrighted emblazonment would be OK to use in the "Subdivisions of Scotland" article like you've been trying to do, it's important to understand that fair use/fair dealing aren't exactly the same thing as non-free content when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive than fair use as explained in WP:NFC. Generally, the use of non-free content such as logos, logo-like images (e.g. coats of arms), pictures of deceased individuals, fictional character images, cover art (e.g. album covers), poster art/packaging, etc. is pretty much never allowed to illustrate individual entries in tables or lists (embedded or stand-alone) per WP:NFTABLES and WP:NFLISTS because such non-free use is almost always considered to be WP:DECORATIVE. In pretty much all cases, alternatives to non-free use such as Wikilinks either to the stand-alone article representing the individual entry or even the individual file is considered preferable to directly displaying the image itself per WP:FREER. In the case of the "Subdivisions" article, the bot removing the file is doing so because of WP:NFC, WP:NFCCE and WP:NFCC because the file lacks a separate, specifi non-free use rationale for its use in that particular article. However, even if you were to add a rationale for that particular use to the file's page, there will still be nine other non-free content use criteria that would need to be satisfied for the use to be considered policy compliant, and, as I have posted above, such non-free use is pretty much never considered to be compliant.You can try asking about the East Ayrshire coat of arms at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology and perhaps someone there can help sort out its copyright status, but I wouldn't continue to re-add the file to the "Sudivisions" article until things have been sorted out. The bot is not wrong in removing the file and is doing exactly what it's been tasked to do. Your continued re-adding of the file, however, could be seen as edit warring, even if that wasn't your intent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyright of paintings
Hello, I wondered if you might be able to help me with adding images of paintings to my page about the artist Charles Knight please. I am unsure of how it works with copyright- can I use images from a website site as long as I say where they are from? For example if I wanted to use this painting: https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O17788/regency-brighton-houses-in-russell-watercolour-charles-knight/ Would I write in the caption Regency Brighton Houses in Russell Square by Charles Knight, V&A? Is it enough to credit the V&A that way? And would I save it from their website and then upload it via the upload wizard? Thank you! Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom as Knight only died in 1990 his works are still in copyright in the UK and the US. So that severely limits the use of his works. However, works specifically commissioned for the Recording Britain scheme appear to be deemed as works covered by Crown Copyright and as such are now public domain items (see commons:Category:'Recording Britain' collection). Have a look at the images in that category to see how they have been licenced and attributed. Nthep (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Matthewfoliverathotmaildotcom (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Re File:Holbein-tube.png image size reduction request
Hi there,

This request won't work. As you can see from the article section The Ambassadors (Holbein), the item under discussion is the visible skull in the optical device, plus the overall tension provided by the placement of the viewing tube across the image. The viewer needs to be able to see the skull as best as possible. It si barely visible as is. The resolution is in fact pretty low anyway, albeit the bot thinks otherwise (because there is a higher than needed DPI perhaps?)

On another note I will try to reproduce the graphic but that will take a couple of weeks at least. I'd suggest it is Ok for now to leave as is, and we can delete the image entirely once it's possible to take some colour photos including a new optic device as pictured.

Jim Killock (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You want to tag the image with Non-free no reduce so the bot doesn't eat it. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not clear why a non-free image is needed here per WP:FREER since it seems possible for someone to simply recreate the experiment shown in the photo with the tube or a new optic device to create a free equivalent image that can be used instead of this or any non-free other one, The painting shown in the photo is within the public domain and can freely photographed per c:COM:PD-Art and c:COM:2D copying. The addition of the "tube" makes in a WP:Derivative work so to speak, but that can be replicated either in front of the actual painting itself or perhaps even if front of high-resolution full-sized photo of the painting. The fact that the OP seems to imply above that the non-free use of this file is also possibly only temporary until they or someone takes color free photos themselves, also pretty makes the argument that a free equivalent image is more than reasonable to expect. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has never be that it's OK to use non-free images by default (even for a short period of time) when FREER isn't being met, and I don't see how this case is any different. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the talk page about this, but in essence I am not yet sure I can properly reproduce it. I don't understand or know how to scale the tube down to match the image size of the available prints, which are about 45% size of the original. This may make it difficult in terms of the hollow tube "thickness width" as well, which would get quite thin and possibly ne a non-standard thickness and not be easily available. Likewise, you can take pictures in the National gallery, but really it would need to be done outside of public viewing hours, perhaps with correct staged lighting etc, and the NG might want to control that. In short it's not certain that it would be easy to recreate but obviously that is my objective. Jim Killock (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For reference, a free equivalent doesn't need to be created or found by you, me or anyone in particular, and it doesn't need to be something that is quick and easy to do; it just needs to be considered reasonable that somebody at some point is able to do (even with some effort involved) either of those two things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this figure copyrighted?
I want to ask about ( Figure : 1 ) from this article, published under a CC-BY license.

The article mentions no restrictions to the license, but the figure's caption reads " (Image: Oxford University Press) ".

Does this mean that this figure is copyrighted and isn't included by the CC-BY license?

User579987 (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is likely copyrighted. Given the references, it is likely a figure that appears in "Growth and post-embryonic development", a book published by Oxford University Press, and that its very much unlikely to be under an open license. CC licenses do allow inclusion of fair use, copyright materials, and this appears to be such a case. M asem (t) 12:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Brazilian documentary photography
I'm wondering what exactly constitutes documentary photography in the context of PD-Brazil-Photo. The specific circumstance that I'm looking at is images from the Turf e Fomento archive. Would the photographs contained within qualify as documentary photography and therefore be public domain? TabbyLadrona (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think you'd have to go on each photo on a case by case basis. Just looking at the first page cover photos, most of those look to be documentary images with the possible exception of April 83 which could be described as artistic rather than documentary. Nthep (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Gallery on Gopi Prasannaa
This happened: I don't understand why they were removed, even though they are still being used in their respective articles. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Fair use images like these film posters require a separate fair use rationale adding for each use. These all have one for the films they represent but lack a rationale for use at Gopi Prasannaa, that's why the bot removed them. I have to say that I think you will struggle to create a valid rationale for them as they will almost certainly fail WP:NFCC. Nthep (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Nthep. Thank you for your reply. Is there a guideline for creating a rationale when adding the posters to Gopi Prasannaa? He is the artist who has created them. I believe some of the posters will pass WP:NFCC as the artist is known for pioneering different styles of design in the South Indian film industry. This is also detailed in the career section of the subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've already linked to it, it's WP:NFCC. There's no hard and fast as rationales are so different especially #8, the context. If his art style is discussed in sources and any of these posters are mentioned then great, that really helps. Just be careful of trying to justify all of them as you can fall of criteria #3a. You're better making a case for one as an example rather than four or more. Nthep (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe only 2-3 of his works are notable enough to be added. So, if I am trying to add File:Aaranya Kaandam.jpg to Gopi Prasannaa, do I need to edit the summary section of File:Aaranya Kaandam.jpg and add an additional Template:Non-free use rationale poster with relevant details? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Nthep (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Works still copyrighted in home country
What's the correct way to handle a file that has entered the public domain in the U.S. but is still copyrighted in its home country? Example: File:Octyabr poster.jpg which just had its U.S. copyright expire, but I've also run into this before with other works.

I understand that the file can't be transferred over to Commons. But on Wikipedia, should PD-US-expired-abroad be used with a non-free copyright template that indicates the status in the home country? And if not, can the file on any article without a WP:FUR if it's public domain in the U.S., or is it subject to WP:NFCC since it's still copyrighted in the home country? hinnk (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You want to add PD-US-expired-abroad, get rid of the non-free license and rationale templates. Also, you can use it in any article without a rationale. Wikipedia defines free content as being free or PD in the US. It's the Commons that requires it to also be free in the source country. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you! hinnk (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Where to mention changes to figures?
If a figure has a CC-BY-4.0 license, one of the terms of the license is to indicate if changes were made.

If I upload a figure to Wikimedia Commons, but change it (e.g. crop it) from the original I found in the CC-BY article, where should I mention the changes I did? In the Wikipedia article itself, the figure's caption, the Wikimedia page of the figure or where? User579987 (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At least in the description page of the file on Commons. Under the template Information, you can add the template Retouched picture, specifying the nature of the change in the parameter. You can also add a note in the Description field of the template Information. In Wikipedia, it depends if that precision is useful or not in the context where the figure is used. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Files uploaded by User:Nassoons
User:Nassoons uploaded five files (see contribs link) claimed own work, but I'm unsure if they're actually all own works. They're used on the article Princeton Nassoons, so the user in question is possibly affilated to the subject of this article. The images in questions are all in the same size, but of different quality, and from different times. I would like to copy them to commons, but those doubts with the copyright need to be addressed.--TheImaCow (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The user name implies the editor is in some way related to the Princeton Nassoons. However, I do not think they have clear licensing.  Consider that File:NassoonsWhiteHouse.jpg is a small resolution, tighter crop of Photo 1 onlast.fm.  I suggest you nominate them for review at FFD.  The aforementioned image name implies it was at the Whitehouse and so potentially could have been taken by an official Whitehouse photographer in which case it would be PD, but my own quick shallow search didn't turn up anything. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Image deletion request on The Ambassadors (Holbein)
Hi there

I added an image to The Ambassadors (Holbein) being File:Holbein-tube.png. There is an image deletion request on it which I have added a dispute to, following the instructions in the notice, on the file page and talk page. However, the notice at The Ambassadors (Holbein) states that "This file has an invalid non-free use claim and may be deleted after Friday, 12 January 2024". How do I ensure this does not happen while the fair use issue is debated and resolved? Jim Killock (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Ping on this as it seems urgent! Maybe it isn't? Jim Killock (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is awful, but important news: further investigation shows that a 1997 restoration of the modern painting and therefore current reproduction copies have changed the proportions of the skull, making it even harder or impossible to reproduce the skull projection. See The Ambassadors (Holbein). Could we remove the takedown request @Marchjuly Jim Killock (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * An administrator will review what you posted on the file's talk page and decide whether it qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:F7 or whether further discussion is needed at WP:FFD. I will add, though, that even if an administrator declines the speedy deletion request, a single use of the file in either the article about the painting or the article about Samuel is probably all that could be justified per relevant policy. Since a single use of non-free content is already considered to be quite the exception to WP:COPY, additional uses of the same file in other articles or in other ways, therefore, are considered to be even more exceptional. In such cases, an alternative to using the file an additional time is almost always preferrable. It seems that much of the content in The Ambassadors (Holbein) and Edgar Samuel is quite similar and thus linking the two sections via a WP:HATNOTE is, at least, a preferrable alternative to an additional use of the file per WP:FREER and WP:NFC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will remove from one and take it from there Jim Killock (talk) 07:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * is there an appeal process, or way to discuss image deletion? It has been removed now, but there's no further reason given, so I have no way to know if the person taking the action has understood the arguments for keeping it. Jim Killock (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (TP stalker): it's always OK to place a *polite* request note on the deleting administrator's talk page, asking them what their rationale was. Should that not satisfy you, the appeal process can be seen at WP:Deletion Review. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's already been done and I am reviewing the request. -- Whpq (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

File:NATO Command Structure as at 3 June 2021.pdf
After continual problems with various editors layering extra organisations one by one onto existing official NATO organization charts, creating an incomplete and WP:OR thing like Template:NATO command structure, I went looking for an official chart that WP or Commons could use. I have provisionally uploaded this Fair Use file which originates from a link on this page.

If I read this: "Photos, videos and articles are released under the legally recognized terms of "Fair Use" to members of the press, academia, non-profits and the general public." https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/68162.htm

description correctly, the file can stay on WP as Fair Use.

Now I have some vague memory that in some circumstances editors can copy the data - which bodies relate to which other bodies, which are the seniormost commanders, etc, and produce a new image, including all the data, retaining the official NATO inter-organisational relationship information (which is public and open), but which then as a effectively new image can be created and put on Commons - with full acknowledgement of the original source of the image and in accordance with: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/68162.htm
 * "All content taken from NATO and republished must be clearly credited or sourced to NATO.
 * Photos, videos and articles are released under the legally recognized terms of "Fair Use" to members of the press, academia, non-profits and the general public.
 * Material is provided, free of charge, for use in objective and balanced content, even if at times the end products may be critical of NATO."

Is this correct? If so, where would I look to help me create the new image? Many thanks for all assistance!! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi . Wikipedia's non-free content policy was intentionally set up to be more restrictive than fair use or fair dealing, and there are ten criteria that each use of non-free content needs to satisfy in order for it to be considered "OK" so to speak; so, simply saying it's "fair use" isn't enough. Satisfying some of these criteria isn't enough; it has to be all ten. It the case of this file, I'm almost certain that it would not be considered to meet non-free content use #1 because really no reason that the same information can't be provided in the article in some alternative way like a WikiTable, bullet list, or simply just simple prose supported by citations to reliable sources. My suggestion to you is to self-tag the file for speedy deletion per WP:G7 before it otherwise gets tagged with di-replaceable non-free use per WP:F7. FWIW, there are also issues with "images" such as this per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES that can potentially create MOS:ACCESS problems for reader who might have some kind of visual impairment and are using devices to assist them in reading articles, but the main issue is WP:FREER. It's unfortunate that there are continual problems with respect to this information in the article, but that's a matter for WP:DR and not a justification for non-free content use. As to whether you can create your own image or graphic, the factual information regarding NATO's organization is not copyrightable as text (as least in my opinion), but the presentation of that information might be; so, it should be OK to do so as long as you basically just don't copy the image provided by NATO down to a T (or even with only minor changes) and claim it as your "own work". The chart layout itself actually seems too simple and too common of a structure (almost like a kind of font for charts)to be copyrightable, and it should be fairly easy to reproduce an equivalent using most common software. However, the important thing to understand (in addition to what I posted about MOS:ACCESS above) is that the dispute over this content is unlikely going to go away just because you're providing the same information in a visual form. Images can be just as easily removed as text, and their addition to an article are still subject to WP:CONSENSUS. So, it would probably best to to try and resolve things on the article's talk page and establish consensus in favor of presenting this content (regardless of whether its as text or as an image) before creating any images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your speedy answer MarchJuly. I am not concerned with the dispute over content, at least initially. What I want is to ensure that we have a chart based on as authoritative-as-possible-sources available, that has a date it was published attached. Where can I be pointed for help to create a replacement? Is that the WP:IMAGELAB? I have next to no knowledge about the software to use. And yes I can self-mark it as G7; I was unsure, but your guidance seems pretty clear. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Book cover
I added the book cover at Fatawa-e-Razvia, kindly have a look and let me know if there’s mistake. — Quadri mobile   (T · C 05:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Election images
Not too long ago I uploaded an image of Bon Lanier as fair use. The image is on his biography as of now. However, I would like the same image to be used in the inboxes of his elections in 1991, 1993, and 1995. The image would serve the same purpose as it is in his article of giving a face to a name. I tried to do it but it was reverted.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 07:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Non-free images must comply with all 10 criteria of the WP:NFCC strict policy. Besides not having a rationale for the election article uses, I doubt it complies with all the other criteria. ww2censor (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, WP:NFCI #10 seems to hint "subject article only." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * it says "articles about the person" and the election is clearly about Lanier.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 21:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The primary topic of the elections article are the elections, and not the candidates in the election. A link to the article about the candidate will provide an image.  That is sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that an infobox-image-collage like at 1991 Houston mayoral election doesn't look a bit incomplete. But in WP-land, not reason enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The image of Sylvester Turner is from 2015. While an image that shows how they looked at the time would be preferable, surely File:Bob Lanier (cropped).jpg is better than nothing? - X201 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That would mean that any non-free image of Bob Lanier would fails to meet WP:NFCC since we have a perfectly usable free image of the person. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Abualimustafa.png
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abualimustafa.png I attempted to add this image from Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades to List of wars: 2003-present in order to correct a mistake someone made uploading another icon. However a bit reverted for not being appropriate. I don't see how they emblem of this group is not free for use? ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It is a logo under copyright, so it is not free to use. -- Whpq (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Arirang 1926 film.jpg
Shouldn't File:Arirang 1926 film.jpg be in the public domain by now? It should be public domain in the United States as it was published before 1929, and public domain in South Korea because it was published in the name of an organization before 1963. 220.85.41.193 (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be PD. -- Whpq (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Update Needed for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's Logo
I noticed that someone needs to update File:KY Transportation Cabinet.jpg to the most recent version of the logo. We (I currently work for KYTC, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet) updated our logo in 2022. The largest, official logo is at https://transportation.ky.gov/Documents/KYTC-Brand-TK-Full-Color-1000x568px.jpg, obtained from https://transportation.ky.gov/Pages/New-Team-Kentucky.aspx. KYTC is obviously a government agency, but I do not know how to prove that for a "Files for upload" request (File:KY Transportation Cabinet.jpg's current copyright is incorrect in my opinion). Does anyone know how I should proceed from here? Thanks. 104.254.218.148 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * You can request a file upload at Files for upload. -- Whpq (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what I said that was not understood. A "Files for upload" request requires proof of copyright when attempting to make a request from a preexisting image.  I do not know how to prove that this image is from a government agency other than it comes from a ".gov" site.  Does anyone know how I should proceed from here?  Thanks.  205.204.186.47 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC) (same person as 104.254.218.148 (talk))
 * You would request this as non-free content. You would need to supply the license and a non-free usage rationale for its use.  The "Nayakan original CD cover" request is an example of one which is non-free.  For the license, you can use Non-free logo.  For the non-free usage rationale, you can use Non-free use rationale logo. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 104/205, I uploaded the newer logo and added it to the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Danganronpa Kirigiri.jpg
I added the book cover at Danganronpa Kirigiri and it was removed by JJMC89 bot. Please tell me where the problem is. SKBNK (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Danganronpa Kirigiri seems to be an old redirect pointing to List of Danganronpa media due to some past vandalism. Based on your edits, I believe that you meant to link to Danganronpa: Kirigiri.  As for your question, I am not fully sure of the answer for why, but I will note that I don't think that is the best template to use in the summary of the file.  Template:Non-free use rationale book cover seems to be a better template to use in the summary portion.  --Super Goku V (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you know how to avoid being removed by JJMC89 bot again? SKBNK (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, but it seems that you figured it out. Presumably the issue was that the article in the description of the file was the non-colon redirect while the article the image was being used on was the colon article, which might have confused it.  Given that over a day has passed, I would assume that JJMC89 bot will not removed the image again, but if it does then feel free to post again here.  --Super Goku V (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * (Just for recordkeeping purposes: I should note that I've now retargeted the redirect at to point to Danganronpa: Kirigiri directly, since the destination article seems to be stable now.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)