Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2024/July

2 euro coin image
Why was this edit reverted? The mentions its "fair use" and its also used in the main 2 euro coin article. Other images of coins presumably have the same copyright.

edit: nvm it was explained to me on discord, i had to add the non-free media use rationale thing to it on commons

Colbertson (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Is non-free use possible here (chief from Botswana, 1953)?
I'm looking for images of Kgari Sechele II, and the only ones I can find online are two from a visit to London in 1953 (he's the one on the left):


 * The Botswana Society and Jeff Ramsey on Facebook, both have produced reliable sources on Botswana
 * Getty Images photo from the same moment at a different angle

Is it possible to have a non-free image on the article about him? I'm not sure what the requirements are about where the image comes from. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 01:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since Kgari Sechele II is deceased, a non-free image of him used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of the stand-alone article about him would, in priciple, be allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as there's no reasonable expection of a freely licensed or public domain image of him being found and used instead. Given that he died in 1962, there might be an image of him out there somewhere that is now considered within the publc domain depending upon when and where it was published. Assuming that no such image can be found, the two images you cited above might have issues with WP:NFCC (for the Facebook image) and WP:NFCC (for the Getty image). See WP:NFC and item 7 of WP:NFC for more details. I don't think in either case, though, that the original copyright holders of those images you found are the Botswana Society or Getty. The Botswana Society most likely got their image from someone or somewhere and just uploaded it to their Facebook page, which probably would fall under fair use/fair dealing. Getty, on the other hand, could've purchased the rights to the image as part of some archive or collection, but Getty has also been known to try to claim copyright ownership over content already in the public domain (see also Copyfraud). So, you might want to ask about these at c:COM:VPC to see whether they might be in the public domain per c:COM:Botswana, c:COM:UK (since that seems to be where the photo was taken) or for some other reason. For reference, Commons doesn't seem to have a problem hosting Getty Images when the image is believed to already be within the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * At first glance, I do not really see much chance they could be in the public domain. Botswana has pma + 50 and the UK has pma + 70 as copyright terms, and both have a 1996 URAA restoration date. Thus the image will almost certainly have been copyrighted in its country of first publication in 1996, making it copyrighted in the US until 2048 inclusive.
 * The only I see chance would be an image that was (simultaneously) published in the US and has not been renewed. At least Reg Burkett, who apparently took the Getty one, is known as a British press photographer, so without evidence to the contrary I would assume that the country of first publication is the UK. Felix QW (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Use of a non-free public domain image at Frognall, Melbourne
Hello, I am seeking to upload the image found at https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C292398 for use at the article Frognall, Melbourne. The image is marked as public domain on the source website and is in the public domain in Australia, but cannot be uploaded to Commons as it is not in the public domain in the United States, which is a requirement for PD images uploaded to Commons (unpublished work with no identifiable author created after 1904, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-unpublished). Is it possible to upload this image to Wikipedia under WP:NONFREE or can it not be accepted here at all? Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The image is in the public domain in the US as copyright expired in Australia on 1 Jan 1994. US only extended copyright for stuff that was in copyright from 1996. Template:PD-Australia and Template:PD-1996 applies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on what posted above, you might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC. If this image is PD, then there's really no justification for uploading it or any other image of the same structure as non-free content per WP:FREER. For reference, a non-free image of a no longer existing structure might be allowed when no free equivalent or PD photos of the same structure can be found when the image is used for primary identification purposes in in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the structure, but it would be rather hard to justify the non-free use of such an image in another article or for other reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello and, thank you for your responses, they are very helpful. I will ask about this image at COM:VPC, but from what I can find, the image only entered the public domain in Australia in 2014 (70 years after creation), meaning PD-1996 would not apply here as the image entered the public domain in Australia after the US cutoff date. Is that correct? Sorry to keep asking questions. Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As our Template:PD-Australia points out, photos first published in Australia and created before 1946 are PD in both the US and Australia. It would only be an issue if the image had really not been published until after February 1989, since it would then be protected in the US for 120 years from creation regardless of its Australian copyright status. Felix QW (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

== Copyright on a journal's cover photoSwiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC) ==

Hello,

Could you please provide detailed instructions on how to properly upload and tag the cover photo on Wikipedia what belongs to a Journal?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Kind regards,

Kateryna

Research Assistant~ Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Answered on the now-blocked user's talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Non-free photo of fraternity pin
File:Pi Lambda Sigma Pin.png was uploaded and licensed as non-free, but that only would seem to be necessary if the pin itself is eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:CB. If the pin isn't eligible for copyright protection (e.g. it's PD-US-1989 or PD-US-no notice, then a non-free license just for the photo would fail WP:FREER. On the other hand, even if the pin is eligible for copyright protection, then it would still seem that a non-free photo wouldn't be allowed per FREER since a freely licensed one could be uploaded and used instead, with a non-free license still being provided for the pin. FWIW, the design of the pin seems fairly simply and might actually be below c:COM:TOO US which means the only thing that matters would be the licensing of the photo, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. So see if you can a photo! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As a 3D piece of jewelry, I do not think we can apply TOO here. We don't consider, for 2D art, effects that give the perception of depth or the like unless it was straight forward things like a drop shadow, and here, this is well beyond just raised letters on the center of the pin (eg why photographs of coins are fine, but not much more) M asem (t) 00:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Mexican peso
Open question. Mexican peso has 103 non-free files in it and is undoubtedly the page with most non-free files on Wikipedia, beating the second place by some 80 points. Articles are structured and worded to minimize the total number of items of non-free content that are included within the encyclopedia, where it is reasonable to do so. can be read at WP:FU. So is this use of 103 non-free files really warranted? Jonteemil (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well I will comment that the article is quite long. Other analogous articles may be split into several pages, such as "banknotes of". I think it is fair to include these images as the appearance of currency is very important to identification. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Currency articles tend to be the highest image use-per-article on WP, however, it is fair that in a country where there is no automatic PD-ness of government coins or banknotes, that illustrating each major printing once (front and back) per issued note is fair. It does make sense to split banknotes from coins (and possibly both from the discussion of the peso as the unit of currency if necessary. There's a clear reason and purpose to that.
 * Of course, if there is an official image from the Bank of Mexico that includes all the necessary images in one single image, that would be far more preferrable as that would be a single non-free instead of a dozen or so. M asem (t) 00:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Illustration added to artist's artice
In the article about artist/scupltor Miles Teves, there is a paragraph under "Reception" that praises a specific piece of Teves's art created for the cover the role-playing game Skyrealms of Jorune. I tried to add a non-free image of trhis artwork in order to illustrate this, using the rationale "This artwork is specifically mentioned in the critical reception quoted in the article." However it was quickly taken down by JJMC89 bot because "No valid non-free use rationale for this page." Can someone provide guidance on what to do to reinstall this illustration in this article. Guinness323 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The pic is here: File:Cover art of Skyrealms of Jorune RPG.png. @Guinness323 The bot must be told that the other article is also ok, compare File:The Rolling Stones' logo.svg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is a 100% on you and not an issue with the bot. It's a self-inflicted wound that's relatively easily fixable, but still self-inflicted nonetheless. When you uploaded the file, you chose to use Skyrealms of Jorune for the article parameter (the part that states " in the non-free use rationale you provided for the file; yet, you added the file to Miles Teves. That bot has been tasked with finding images being used in ways that do not comply with WP:NFCC and the main way it does this is by looking for a link to the article where the file is being used in the non-free use rationale provided for the file. The non-free use rationale is telling the bot that the file is going to be used in "Skyrealms of Jorune", but the bot is seeing used in "Miles Teves" instead; so, it does what it's been tasked to do and removes the file per WP:NFCCE from the article or articles where it's being used without a corresponding non-free use rationale.  The bot isn't reading the non-free rationale in the sense that you or I might read it. It's not trying to assess whether the file meets non-free content use criterion WP:NFCC. It's only looking for a technical connection between the non-free use rationale provided for the file and the article where it's seeing the file being used. Changing the article parameter of the non-free use rationale from Skyrealms of Jorune to Miles Teves ("Miles Teves#Reception" might even be better) should stop the bot removing the file.  Finally, tweaking the file's non-free use rationale should resolve the reason why the bot removed the file, but it doesn't automatically mean the file's non-free use is beyond reproach. Someone could still challenge the file's non-free use if they think it fails any of the other non-free content use criteria. Video game cover art is, first and foremost, generally considered to be acceptable when used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the video game itself. Trying to use such cover art in other articles or in other ways can be trickier and harder to justify per WP:NFC; so, the more critical commentary (supported by citations to reliable sources) you can add to that section of the Teves article about how the cover art is representative of Teves work, the better your chances of avoiding the file's non-free use being challenged. What 's there so far isn't bad per se, but it puts a lot of weight on entirely one source and one person's interpretation of the significance of the work. If you can show that others have been discussing the cover in such a way as well, it might show present a more balanced picture of critical acclaim the cover received. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That image brings to mind the phrase "know where your towel is". In triplicate! Why doesn't the big green guy have a towel? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Illustration on National Park Service web page
I am asking about the illustration of Tlingit people catching salmon on this web page. Is it reasonable to conclude that this illustration is the work of an employee of the U.S. federal government and therefore in the public domain? Is the NPS notation at the end of the description of the illustration an indication of that? Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I would say yes, it looks to be NPS work based on the credit on the photo caption. -- Whpq (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Simple Maintenance: Delete >>File:Merkle-Ed-1946.jpg<<
I loaded an image with a wrong name. Issue has been rectified except an administrator needs to speedy this file away. Thanks. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Done. In future you might find it easier to use db-self to make such requests. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)