Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2024/May

File:Waterboarding a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang.jpeg
Hello everyone! I noticed that this file is copyrighted and I would like to use it for the article "Torture" in the Vietnamese Wikipedia project. Can I upload it to the Vietnamese Wikipedia with full copyright details like the English version? Hope to get some help! Have a nice day! Phong Dang (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @P. ĐĂNG You'll have to ask on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång Some members knowledgeable in this field on Vietnamese Wikipedia are currently inactive. At the Vietnamese Wikipedia project, when downloading a copyrighted image from the English Wikipedia, I often copy the entire copyright attribution of the English version to the Vietnamese version. I'm wondering if I can make the above file this way? Phong Dang (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Depends what the fair use rules on vi-WP are, and I have no idea. My impression is that en-WP is comparatively liberal in this regard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Toohool Can you join this discussion? Phong Dang (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It depends on Vietnamese Wikipedia's copyright policy. The photo is public domain in the US, but some wikis require that files also be public domain in the country where most of that wiki's editors are located. If Vietnamese Wikipedia has that policy, then we have to look at Vietnamese copyright law, which would protect this photo for 75 years from publication, which is 2044. (Though the photo may also be allowable as non-free content, depending on Vietnamese Wikipedia's version of WP:NFCC and on how you intend to use it). Toohool (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For information, this photo is discussed on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The file on Commons is restored. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Toohool, Hello, As can be seen in the Commons discussion linked above, one administrator of Commons disputed the finding of no copyright notice. Given that the uploader of the file referenced you as the person who researched the matter, do you confirm the fact that the six newspapers listed had no copyright notice, not even general copyright notices for the newspapers? -- Asclepias (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, all those newspapers had no copyright notice at all, neither for the image nor for the newspaper as a whole. By the way, any active editor with 500+ edits can access Newspapers.com for free through Wikipedia Library, and see for themselves.

On Simon Ekpa's Signature
I found a public signature of Simon Ekpa on this Yle. I intend to sketch it out but I would also implore an Adobe Illustrator user here to help us sketch it out and give us the upload to Wikimedia commons for use on Wikipedia pages.

Best, «fjuːgəbʌs» (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You should make a request at the Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. ww2censor (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Non-Free Fair Use
hi everyone! i've been having a confusing interaction with another editor @Paper9oll, who has told me they won't be replying any more, and i am tagging them here solely so the talk page interactions are easily reviewable

1. i uploaded an image i believed fell under non-free fair use, and gave a rationale for doing so in the file upload wizard

2. the other editor mentioned above put a file permission problem message on my talk page. it included this paragraph: "If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use."

3. at the time i didn't know if the rationale i initially uploaded was saved anywhere, so i responded to that editor on my talk page explaining that, and saying that it appeared to me to already be tagged as non-free fair use

4. when i didn't hear back from them for a couple days, i looked into it more myself, and found out that the file upload wizard rationale was saved on the file's page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Choi_Hye-seon_Avatar_from_YouTube.jpg, so i reposted the rationale on the other editor's talk page and asked if it was satisfactory

5. the other editor responded by suggesting i send author permission

6. i referenced the paragraph i quoted above, which seems to me to avoid the question of author permission altogether, which i understand to be the whole point of fair use. the other editor was not satisfied, which brings me here with the following question:

does wikipedia allow non-free fair use of images? if so, how?

i feel that the record on our respective talk pages indicates i have made a good faith effort to follow the stated rules of wikipedia, but i am nevertheless at an impasse with someone who outranks me, so the file will be deleted in 4 days regardless. i am trying to follow the rules, and the other editor seems to strongly imply without outright saying that non-free fair use isn't actually allowed, and if that's the case, fine! i'm genuinely not looking to argue with anyone, just let me what the real rules are, and i'll happily go with it :D thanks! Kinerd518 (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Kinerd518 I'm not sure why Paper9oll tagged this for deletion for lacking permission when no claim of this image being released under a free licence has been made by you. In any event it's unlikely that she owns the copyright on the image anyway. Where I think it fails the non-free content criteria is that it is replaceable by a free image should one be found or created i.e. it fails WP:NFCC.  I have now nominated it for deletion for that reason. Nthep (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nthep i appreciate your response! but at this point i'm even more confused lol, because i feel like NFCC#1 was one of the parameters in the file upload wizard i already put a response to, under the "Not replaceable with free media because" section. i think it's clear i just don't understand the rules for non-free fair use images here, and it would save everyone a lot of time if someone just deleted it immediately, and we let that be that Kinerd518 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the more important point to be considered about NFCC#1 is the phrase "or could be created". Generally if a person is alive such a free image could be created and while access to them may be difficult, or almost impossible, that is not the issue. So no, I'm sorry to say, even though non-free may be difficult to understand unless you read very carefully and have some reasonable NFCC experience, your image fails the strict non-free criteria. I should also point out that the non-free policy is much stricter than fair use and should not be confused with each other. Generally deletion are not immediate unless they really are blatant copyright violations and marks as such but wikipedia has no deadline so there is no harm in it being online for a while. ww2censor (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ww2censor again i gotta say, i'm not at all looking for an argument here. i offered an explicit and specific rationale for how this image is not replaceable by free media per NFCC#1, i put this in the original upload, and no one at all has addressed the rationale i offered at all. and that's fine! i repeat again, it's fine that nobody wants to address what i said. just someone say that non-free fair use is impossible, *for whatever reason*, or someone address what i said, and we can all move on
 * or don't! again i say, just delete the image perforce, and stop trying to justify it, and we can all move on from there too. i really don't understand how this is worth any of our time to pretend, i feel like this should embarrass us all Kinerd518 (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Use of non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. Your stated purpose starts with .  For this purpose, any image of the subject will do.  That is the position of the editors above who state that the image is replaceable.  You further qualify the purpose with  but there is no explanation why it must be the image from the youtube channel to identify the her.  So yes, her specific image from youtube channel cannot be replaced by a free image but there is no good reason why it must be that image used for identifications.  -- Whpq (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * i still want nothing more to do with this discussion, but my tone in my last post crossed the line, so i wanted to publicly apologize to @Ww2censor and anyone else who read it. i'm sorry, and i'll try to do better in the future. that's it for me! Kinerd518 (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Image use on related pages
The image CSHS_WEB.png is in the article Carroll Senior High School. The football team for the school has its own article, Southlake Carroll Dragons Football. I attempted to use the same image in the football article, but it was reverted. How can it be used in one article for the school but not another? Thanks! PhillyHarold (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , generally speaking, the use of an organization's nonfree logo is permitted in the article about that organization, but not in articles about everything related to it. So, use is fine in the article about the high school, but not in articles about sports teams or clubs at it, teachers or staff at it, or the like. If the sports team has its own logo, using that would be acceptable, but if they just use the school logo, that will need to stay in just the article about the school itself. The creation of free images about the sports team would be entirely possible, such as if someone took and freely licensed an image of the team during a practice or game, so of course free images like that could be used there instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate the thoughtful and logical response. Thanks so much.PhillyHarold (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Vanuatu Government Copyright
Hey folks, does anyone know if Vanuatu government works are subject to copyright? Specifically interested in File:Flag of Vanuatu.svg (published 1980) which Flag of Vanuatu asserts was adopted in 1980. According to c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Vanuatu and the Vanuatu Government's copyright office, copyrights for collective/other/pseudonymous works is 50y. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I did not find any info about government copyrights. Assuming no new info is available, this would imply that the flag is copyrighted until 1980+50 = 2030. cc: @Matrix -Fastily 00:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I found some info about Vanuatu copyrights here. Clearly the government does not allow commercial exploitation of the flag when it is under copyright. I have doubts a flag is considered applied art and hence would be eligible for only 25 years protection. Maybe a Commons DR will have to be started. —Matrix(!) { user - talk? - uselesscontributions } 07:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fastily@Matrix however, since enwiki is only obliged to follow U.S. copyright law (US Code Title 17), can it be transferred here locally? Flags do not seem to be copyrightable objects under U.S. law...or so? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why do you think flags might not be copyrightable under US copyright law? A flag may be too simple in design too be eligible for copyright protection, or it may be within the public domain due to federal or state laws/statutes; however, I don't a flag is ineligible for copyright protection just because it's a flag. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Marchjuly ah, I may have mixed Philippine and U.S. norms in copyrightability of flags. Filipino users here claimed in various Commons DR's (like c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Cavite City.svg) that flags from the Philippines are not copyrightable, and I may have mixed it with the U.S., since the forerunner of 1998-era R.A. 8293 (the current copyright law of the Philippines) is Act 3134 of 1924 (which was based on the U.S. copyright law of 1909). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

File: Auckland_Libraries_logo.png
Sorry, I feel dumb and honestly feel Wikipedia has become too bureaucratic to derive any personal enjoyment, but here I am anyway trying my best to contribute. I am trying to edit Auckland Council Libraries' pages for consistency and want to add File:Auckland_Libraries_logo.png to the infoboxes. I feel that this logo should be perfectly acceptable but a bot removed it citing: "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation." I've read through the documentation and have no idea what any of it means except conceptually. These pages seem to be the precise places where this logo should be used. How can I use this file on these pages without triggering the bot? – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 03:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi . That particular bot removes files from articles that are lacking a separate specific non-free use rationale for the use as required by non-free content use criterion 10c in accordance with WP:NFCCE. The bot links to WP:NFC because that particular subsection explains that a non-free file needs two things: (1) a non-free copyright license and (2) a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the file. In pretty much all a cases a non-free file only needs one copyright license regardless of how many times its being used; however, no all non-free uses are equivalent and this why a justification (i.e. a non-free use rationale) explaining how a particular use satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria also needs to be added to the file's page.For reference, File:Auckland_Libraries_logo.png does have a rationale for its use in Auckland Libraries which is why the bot didn't remove the file from that article. My guess is that you added the file to other articles but failed to add corresponding non-free use rationales for the uses to the file's page; so, the bot caught that and removed the files. Adding the missing rationales to the file's page will stop the bot from removing the file.Now having said all of that, there are (as previously mentioned) ten non-free content criteria that each non-free use needs to meet for it to be considered policy compliant. Adding a rationale for a use only satisfies one of the ten (more specifically, just one part of one of the ten); so, adding a rationale doesn't automatically make a particular non-free use policy compliant. In general, Wikipedia's non-free content policy requires that we try to minimize non-free content use as much as possible and only really use when it essential to the reader's encyclopedic understanding. Relevant policy encourages us to use free equivalent images or other free alternatives (e.g. Wikilinks, text content, no image at all) whenever possible. In the case of non-free logos, the long-standing consensus has been that it's pretty much OK to use the logo for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of the primary stand-alone article about the subject the logo represents (e.g. a company logo being used in a stand-alone Wikipedia article about said company), but even this use is considered to be quite an exception to Wikipedia's general licensing requirements; so, if a single use of a file is considered quite an exception, additional uses of the same file are considered to be even more exception and thus tend to require an even stronger justification.It looks like you were trying to add the logo to infoboxes of branches of the main Auckland Library and such uses are generally not allowed, except in cases where the logo in question is specific to the branch itself. In such cases, the main logo is considered fine for the article about the parent entity (i.e. the "Auckland Libraries" article), but not considered acceptable to use in articles about child entities (i.e. the individual branch articles) as explained in item 17 of unacceptable uses for images. If you feel there's something different about this particular situation, you can add the required rationales to the file's page and then re-add the file to the individual branch articles; however, I really think you'll have a hard time justifying this if those additional uses end up being challenged, and the files will again likely end up being removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyright status of 1931 image whose author is unknown
Is this image eligible for copyright? Huh?uninspired!V2 (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It is quite likely to be free of copyright, but some background to its original publication would help confirm that. If it turns out to be an advertisement in a US trade magazine, say, it would be PD for lack of a copyright notice. Felix QW (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

File:My Father's Tears and Other Stories cover art for 2009 collection, Alfred A. Knopf.jpg
I'm not sure that File:My Father's Tears and Other Stories cover art for 2009 collection, Alfred A. Knopf.jpg needs to be licensed as non-free since it appears to be nothing more that the book's title and the author's name on a sky-blue background. Since the book was published by an American publishing company, this would seem to be too simple for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States. The file's non-free use doesn't seem to be problematic per se; the file just doesn't seem to need to be treated as non-free. Any opinions regarding whether this needs to remain non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Certainly does not meet the US threshold of originality for me. Felix QW (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Bot keeps reverting changes
The bot JJMC89 bot keeps reverting changes. How do I disable the bot on a wiki page? It seems to ignore reverts of its changes. Ergzay (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Ergzay Examples please? If you're specifically talking about image removals, the bot is normally pretty good and the main reason it removes images is that they are non-free images lacking a rationale for the article they had been added to. Nthep (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi . Are you asking about the bots edits to the article "List of tallest statues"? If you are, then the bot seems to be doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing. The bot explained why it removed File:Ushiku.jpg from the article in the edit summary it left. Did you see the edit summary and click on the link included in it? Non-free content is bascially required to have two things for it to be OK to use in a Wikipedia article: (1) a non-free copyright license and (2) a separate specific non-free use rationale for each use. Although a single copyright license is usually sufficient in most cases regardless of how many times a non-free files is being used, a seperate non-free use rationale is required to be added to the file's page for each of its different uses because not all uses of a file may be considered compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You added the Ushiku image to the list article about statues, but you didn't add a corresponding non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page; so, the bot did what it's been tasked to do and removed the file. If you want to stop the bot from removing the file, you or someone else will need to add the required rationale for that use to the file's page. However, adding a rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the criteria that need to be satisfied for a non-free use to be valid; so, adding the rationale doesn't automatically mean the file's non-free use will still not be challenged or removed. Finally, your edit here isn't really accurate in terms of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Generally, in cases like this, non-free images aren't considered OK to illustrate individual entries in list articles or in tables for the reasons given in WP:NFLISTS, WP:NFTABLES and item 6 of WP:NFC. Since an image of the statue can be seen in Ushiku Daibutsu, adding the same file to the list article is considered to not really be needed per non-free content use criterion #3 (WP:NFC) and the free alternative of linking to the statue's article is considered sufficient per non-free content use criterion #1 (WP:FREER). Of course, none of that has to do with why the bot removed the file since the bot is unable to make such assessments, but it's generally what's considered to be the consensus regarding this type of non-free use. You can disagree with this assessment, add the missing rationale to the file's page and then re-add the file to the article if feel is somehow different and should be separately discussed. Doing so, as mentioned above, will stop the bot, but I don't think you'll be able to establish a consensus for this file's use in that particular article at WP:FFD and stop file from eventually be removed again by a Wikipedia administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Separate question but apparently related to the same bot
No. Even the image has a rationale for the page used, it still removes. I also got this userbox's emblem removed without asking me. I've read the revision summary that the bot left and it said removed NFCC violations. At that time I was so confused that I thought the bot is attempting to thwart my contributions away like a trash. It skips the rationale and removes without notice, like this userbox. Kys5 g talk! 03:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You still have not stated exactly what image and what article this happened at. Its hard to answer your question when you don't provide any details. -- Whpq (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Now enough? Kys5 g talk! 04:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread and confused you with the original editor posting the question. In your case, the usage fails WP:NFCC.  Nonfree content is allowed only in articles.  A template or userbox is not an article. -- Whpq (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi . There's some guidance on this at WP:UBX and WP:UP. You might also want to look at WP:UOWN as to why neither permission nor a warning needs to be given for clear violations of Wikipedia policy in the user namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Scars Upon My Heart advertisement.jpg
Given that File:Scars Upon My Heart advertisement.jpg is nothing but factual information expressed as simple text, which is usually not considered eligible for copyright protection, it seems that this advertisement doesn't need to be treated as non-free. Since it's from the UK, though, it might not be something acceptable to move to Commons per c:COM:UK, but it should be OK to relicense as PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on Wikipedia. Any reason why this should remain non-free? If it does need to remain non-free, then I don't think it's use meet WP:FREER and WP:NFC. Finally, regardless of the file's copyright status, there might be an issue with MOS:TEXTASIMAGES since it essentially is an image of what's written in Scars Upon My Heart. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree with your assessment, PD in US only. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

PD-old-assumed?
File:Edouard Pinaud, Ed. Pinaud.jpg looks more like an advertisement incorporating a colorized/sepia public domain image of Édouard Pinaud who died in 1868. The source cited is "France, Digital Crown Holdings Limited" and there's also a link to www.ed-pinaud.com. It's not clear what the 2009 date given in the file's non-free use rationale is for, but it might be the publication date of this particular advertisement/image. A Google image search of this the photo found this unclorized version on Facebook, a colorized/sepia version without the text in this 2016 blog post and another version of the same image in this 2009 blog post. It seems that the black-and-white version of the photo should be PD-old-assumed given the date it was likely taken, but I'm wondering what others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment; replace with the black & white version and tag PD-old-assumed. He died over 150 years ago. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sample of a 92 second song
I am working on creating a sample for my draft of User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Go New York Go. The original 1994 version of the song is 92 seconds. I imagine that I am limited to less than the usual 30 seconds for a sample but I am not sure what the sampling limits are for such a short song.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, can an article have both a link to the youtube video of the song and a 15 or 16 second sample.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If less than 30 seconds can capture the essence of a song, that's all you need. You can link to YouTube if the video isn't a copyright violation (that is, it's an "official" video for which the entity who posted the video owns the copyright). Copyvio youtube links are deleted on sight. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Bat Khan.JPG and others
Hello. Can an admin check if the files deleted through are eligible for undeletion courtesy of the reformed Mongolian FoP (see c:COM:FOP Mongolia). The eligible works are statues, structures, and architecture that are meant to be permanently-located in public places. Due to some ambiguity, Commons consensus treat public indoors as "unsure/unknown" as of the moment. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Warranty on old knife sleeve
I have an old Quikut knife with the blade still in its cardboard sleeve, which has a lifetime warranty printed on it. I recall my family bought it in the 1970s.

I took a picture of the knife blade next to the sleeve. The warranty verbiage is similar to this, although my version says in big capital letters that the warranty is valid "EVEN IF THE DAMAGE IS YOUR FAULT". I'd like to add my photo to the Ginsu article, which discusses the Quikut brand extensively.

Would this be a non-free image? Is this warranty text copyrighted? If so, the low resolution required would wash out the text, so it may not be worth uploading. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * PD-text, also Useful-object-US, also de minimis. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Added File:Quikut warranty.jpg. I appreciate the advice. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)