Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2018/October

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

This file seems to be the same as

File is licensed as {{

I'd say that's PD in both the US and Canada. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If an image has been tagged for deletion as a copyvio on Commons for over three months without action, and it strongly appears to be non-free, what is the best recourse to ensure the image is not used or reused on Wikipedia? Thank you.--

John Cline, What file are you discussing? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk

) 15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

John Cline (talk

) 16:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It has been a while since I uploaded a photo that I want to use for a biography page. The new rules confuse me completely. The photo is currently copyrighted by the American Water Works Association. I have been told that I can use the photo. All I need is to figure out some way for them to release the photo into the public domain so that I can upload it to the bio. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkingwaterdoc (talk • contribs) 22:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONSENT but the OTRS system is quite backlogged. ww2censor (talk

) 20:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding so quickly. AWWA has agreed to publish the photo under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal License. Here is a link to pdfs of the pages from your release generator (at: https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/)

https://thisdayinwaterhistory.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/krasner-photo-copyright-release-by-awwa.pdf

Please let me know that this is ok. Please do not delete the picture until the license is recognized by Wikimedia Commons. Drinkingwaterdoc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Apropos to the above section, I found

I agree with this assessment, but a non-free use rationale might not be needed for each and every individual image though based upon something similar I asked

WP:FREER there may be free equivalents which can be used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 01:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to add this photo, File:AgnesBernelle.jpg, to the relevant wikidata item. To do so, I understand that it must be on wikicommons. I would be happy to move it there, but I don't understand this particular image's copyright. Can someone help? thanks. - Trilotat (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Trilotat. Commons does not accept

non-free content per c:COM:FAIR, so this shouldn't be moved there as licensed. If you tried to do so, it would most likely be quickly flagged for deletion. I'm not sure about the Wikidata part of your question, so perhaps someone else will answer that. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 01:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought might be the answer. I appreciate the prompt reply. _Trilotat (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Does this need to be treated as non-free? It's basically the same as File:Nintendo Direct logo.svg with the word "Mini" added onto it. Even if this is possibly above c:COM:TOO#Japan, it seems to be OK for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO#United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I doubt even this could be considered non-free in Japan. I'd tag it as {{

move to commons}}. ww2censor (talk

) 10:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Factual information is not copyrightable. For example, the height of the Empire State Building can not be copyrighted, or the result of a baseball game, or the speed of a cruise ship. The range of a species is a 'fact'. However...however...you may get into some gray area if there are different definitions of what the range is. I would NOT use the journal articles as a basis. I would use OpenStreetMap (https://www.openstreetmap.org/) as a basis, which has a license compatible with our free licensing requirements. From there, add on your own interpretation of the range, sticking to facts of course, and publish the output here under a compatible license. As an example; File:LakeAtnaRelatedGeography.jpg. I made this map using OpenStreetMap as a base, and doctored it up from there, releasing my output under cc-by-sa-3.0. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  I'd suggest looking on Commons for existing blank maps, and then using Inkscape or another vector editor to draw on those. While OpenStreetMap makes good street maps, they aren't usually ideal for things like range maps. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  @

  talk

  ) 17:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that this image is not properly licensed to be used on WP. I found its licence on Flickr here I am unfamiliar with the deletion process related to images or I would remove it myself. Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS): There does not appear to be any significant licencing issue with this image, which came from the artist's own Flickr accountx, though the licence is version 4.0 instead of 2.0. I've fixed that. If you have any legitimate reason for its deletion you would use the "Nominate for deletion" button on the left of your screen, but commons images must be nominated there, not here. ww2censor (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Licencing is something I grasp in principal but still lack the skill to deal with appropriately. Then the issue is different and appears to be an attempt at self-promotion (since the artist is relatively unknown.) Thank you for your explanation. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 17:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Barbara, if you go to Commons and go to Preference > Gadgets > AjaxQuickDelete, that will give you opinions in the side bar on the left to nominate images for c:Commons:Deletion requests. GMG^talk 17:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Despite my relatively high edit count and 'years of service' I still feel like I will never learn all the in and outs of WP and its ever-expanding policies. Thanks for not making me eat humble pie. You are gracious. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I want to have a portrait of the author. The two portraits at [1] are probably out-of-copyright but NFCC would also be appropriate. I am a little unclear though what information I can get/need on these portraits in order to use one -- any help, here? Research experts? Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone? :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to use this image, but the copyright status is uncertain. The image belongs to the City of Liverpool, Sydney. It has a licence that says: "May be reproduced or published. Please acknowledge that the image is from the Heritage collection of Liverpool City Library". If the image were Crown Copyright, then it would be in the public domain, per the 50-year rule; but there is legal uncertainty about whether local government is part of the crown. For my purpose, I could upload as Fair Use. Would this be the best way to proceed? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 October 4#A Night at the Opera screenshots. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if anyone might be able to track down the original sources for the files being discussed in the aforementioned discussion. If they can be converted to {{

WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 01:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that this 45 label needs to be {{Non-free album cover}} since it basically black text on a solid origin background with no other imagery. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Was wondering if someone familiar with non-free files would mind uploading an infobox image for

Do these need to be treated as

As long as its only the label/graphic image, then they should PD-USGov (making these records as part of official gov't duties). Clearly doesn't apply to the sound recording itself. --Masem (t) 05:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

There's an image whose license tag says it's public domain made by the uploader, but it also says somewhere else on the page that it's adapted from another source which doesn't seem to be public domain. Could someone have a look at File:SigComp Architecture.png and see if anything has to be changed. Also, in case it turns out the image can't stay in the article it's used in, would it be okay to copy text about the image into the article? I know if there's no image, the text can't talk about the top and bottom of it, but the last two paragraphs of the description section say something the article currently doesn't say, and they're discussing the meaning and not the visual appearance of it. – Pretended leer (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi

WP:NFCC#8 since the same information probably can be expressed in some other way using prose or some other free graphical representation. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 06:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

hello, I work for Angela Green. She is running for Arizona US Senate and is officially on the ballot. Can you please add here picture? It is on the website www.yeswewillmakeadifference.com. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona,_2018 .

I am not sure which license I should be using. Thank youMeekah78 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, are you the photographer? Or the person who paid the photographer for that photo? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi

consent to do so. Since it's the photographer, not the person being photographed, who is typically considered to be the copyright holder of a photo, that's whose permission is needed. This is why Jo-Jo Eumerus has asked whether you took the photo or whether you paid a photographer to take it. If the answer to either of those questions is "Yes", then you can upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons by following the instructions given in c:Commons:Upload Wizard. Just choose one of the licenses given in c:Commons:Creative Commons and follow the instructions of the upload wizard. It would be a big help if you can upload the file with the original Exif data associated with it by downloading the photo from your camera onto your computer and then uploading it to Commons because this often helps verify copyright ownership. If, however, the photo is one which has been previously published online somewhere (like social media or an official website), then you may have to follow c:Commons:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? instead. You also need to understand that choosing to release a particular photo under a free-license is not a transfer of copyright ownership to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons (you'll still retain copyright ownership of it), but it does mean that you're pretty much agreeing in advance to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the version you've uploaded at anytime and use for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative use. Moreover, the license of any file you upload under such a license cannot be revoked or cancelled later on if you change your mind. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 06:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded some files (e.g. File:Steven G. Bradbury 2013-07-27.png) some years ago under what I now believe was an incorrect understanding of the CSPAN PD template. Re-reading the CSPAN Copyright & Licensing page, it seems that because some of these hearings took place at the Rayburn House Office Building (as opposed to the capitol building) it is not eligible for Commons licensing because CSPAN doesn't offer blanket permissions for commercial use of committee hearings. Is this correct? Would the material be suitable on a local Wikipedia instead of Commons? Also affected would be File:Virginia A. Seitz 2014.png, File:Dawn Johnsen 2007.png, File:DanielLevin2008.png, File:Robert baer.png, File:Colleen kiko.png, File:Gina Haspel confirmation.png, File:Steven A. Engel 2017-05-10.png, File:Caroline Krass Confirmation.jpg, and File:David J Barron 2013.PNG. As it is, the pictures aren't terribly high-quality, but they often are the only picture in the article. Bradbury, Engel, Kiko, and Haspel all have far better images in their articles, so I'd support removing the CSPAN screenshots regardless of copyright status. Sorry for the trouble; I can only offer a mea culpa.-Ich (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I was on a page 3 or 4 days ago and found how to ask permission to use copyrighted pictures. I requested as recommended in Wiki and was granted permission by the owner. I have the email. I know the page talked about where I need to send the email so the pictures can be pulled into Wiki images. I just can't find the page that tells me who to send it to.

I assume the pictures and permission are reviewed and then added so I can use them. If you can tell me the Teahouse pages I need to read, please let me know, I'd like to get the page I've been working on updated.

Thanks, Wkraft33 (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Wkraft33: The copyright holder is normally the photographer and it is their permission that is required. Ownership of an image gives no right over the copyright unless it was transferred in a contract, such as "work for hire". Nowadays forwarded email are not generally acceptable, they need direct contact with the copyright holder. These image will be freely licensed so they should be uploaded to the commons. Ask the copyright holder to use the "Interactive Release Generator" found on this page: c:COM:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries but warn them there is quite a delay, up to 150 days, so they should be patient. That page gives you all the info you need to verify permission for an image. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The email I have is from the photographer, the pictures have his name on them. The request I sent was copied directly from one that was recommeneded on Wiki. Can you tell me where I need to forward the granted permission email to and then where to send the pictures to get uploaded to Commons? Wkraft33 (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Wkraft33: All the info you need is on the page I linked to above; email address, how to tag an image once you/they receive a ticket number, etc. Maybe you need to review the whole page Commons OTRS page not just the section I linked to. ww2censor (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I had uploaded File:Harry Hudson Photo.jpg for the Harry Hudson (musician) page and the photographer turned in his permission. That info was Photog’s name: Justin Wilczynski Ticket#: 2018071010007875. I received a bot saying that the permission was never sent in. After 7 days of the notification the photo was deleted. I never knew this but just noticed yesterday. What do I need to do to reinstate the photo? I'm still very new at all this and always seem to have issues with photos I put up on the pages I create or edit. Thank you in advance for the guidance. EllenZoe (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard. You should be aware OTRS agents are all volunteers and the system is quite backlogged up to 33 days according to that page. I can tell you that a reply was sent but to date no one has responded to the questions asked. If they get a good permission, the image will be restored at that time. Good luck. ww2censor (talk

) 22:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I am the designer of several album covers for the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_97_Sampler

When I upload my artwork, the covers are deleted for copyright reasons. Is there any way I can overcome this and publish my work? Should I publish to my flickr account with the appropriate license and link from there? What is the correct way to go about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaonadara (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi

WP:NALBUM. So, while it might be possible to add a single album cover as a representative image for the entire series to the top of the article (perhaps there's a boxed set or something which can be used), it seems unlikely that an album cover for individual albums would be deemed to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 22:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Can a copyright expert kindly give guidance in terms of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works on whether we should link to a Russian fan site that offers extensive texts of works by P. G. Wodehouse and others that are in copyright in the UK? This is an article on the site that seems dubious in terms of copyright, as its author, George Orwell, died in 1950: George Orwell "In Defence of P.G. Wodehouse". A steer would be most welcome. Tim riley talk 20:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I can see no justification for linking to sites which we know are violative of copyright. One need not have an internet link to an article such as Orwell's in order to use it as a reference; just cite the print publication properly. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi

copyright violation. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 22:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for this clear and helpful guidance. Tim riley talk 12:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at

I've posted the above link to this Teahouse question because I figure MCQ is probably the best place to ask whether anything can be done to help this person.

WP:N, but the question about attribution might require a more detailed response. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 13:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This was originally uploaded as a non-free logo (see

• The license on the image says it is PD because the author either died more than 50 years ago or 30 years before 2010 (1980). Given that the university was founded in 1991, I think it's highly unlikely this image was created many, many years before the university was founded and therefore the image qualifies for this licensing. I'd return it to non-free until it can be proven to be freely licensed or PD. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Appreciate the input Hammersoft. I am a bit concerned (based upon this response) that the file was just converted to so that it could be added to all of the other images displayed on the uploader's user page, but also as you point out it doesn't seem to meet the conditions of {{PD-Iran}} and I don't think {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is an option; so, maybe it does need to be non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel like I should already know the answer to this, but just to idiot check myself: can the information in tables be copyrightable if there is no original arrangement (items are listed alphabetically) and the entire table consists of basically un-embellished information? In this case, the name of a body of water, a year, and the name of a species of fish? GMG^talk 19:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Under the conditions you give: Depends on the inclusion criteria of the table. Are they creative in some way? For example, a list of all volcanoes whose scenery you like? Creative, hence copyrightable. A list of all volcanoes that erupted in 2017? Not creative, hence not copyrightable. That's for the US which is all what Wikipedia cares about, different countries have different laws. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's developed by the State of Alaska and consists of 10 lake names, most recent year stocked, and the species of fish it was stocked with. My intuition was that it was not sufficiently creative to be copyrightable, but I figured I'd get a second opinion just in case. It's not complex, but it is ~80 works of text and the exact arrangement copied verbatim. GMG^talk 19:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, generally speaking, the dividing line is whether the work is a pure statement of facts or derivation of facts (e.g., baseball statistics are derived by defined mathematical formulas from facts about players' performance), or in any way contain opinion or commentary (e.g., a tourist guidebook that lists a table of attractions in a given area but also describes what's nice about them, the best places to stay and eat there, etc.). It sounds like what you're describing is squarely in the pure facts column. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure. My mind wondered into copyright of typesets and arrangements. Thanks for the sanity check. GMG^talk 19:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

The biography of the late

nonfree rationale is not based upon it being an album cover used in the album article, but in this specific case, is used as an image of a deceased individual for whom no free photos are available. Generally speaking, one nonfree image is allowed in an article about someone who is deceased when there are no known available free images and the likelihood of finding or getting a free image is very low. Of course if a free image is found, an old image falls into the public domain, or the copyright holder of an existing image agrees to release one under a free license, then a free image does exist and the nonfree image must be replaced with the free one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

20:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Does this need to be licensed as

Marchjuly, at least under US law, color gradients aren't sufficiently creative to make text-only logos copyrightable (nor are other simple effects like in the well known IBM logo). Definitely looks {{PD-textlogo}} to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a bit of an unusual request and I don't really know where to put it. I just updated

 Done Pick your old version. Next time you can ask at

WP:REFUND. Graeme Bartlett (talk

) 05:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Does this need to be licensed as {{

I can't find this image anywhere on indoorfootballencyclopedia.com. What's the deal here, NostalgiaBuff97501? Did you make this image or is it from the website? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Is on their Facebook page. NostalgiaBuff97501 (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I included this file on the page for the song "Up Where We Belong" to indicate how the lyrics of the original song were altered to appeal to a Christian audience, but it was removed by a bot with the description "No valid non-free use rationale for this page". Is it possible to add in a rationale so that it can be used for this song page in addition to the album page that the cover comes from? Thanks! Danaphile (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#8 without even considering the other 9 guidelines. ww2censor (talk

) 11:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering what to do with File:Players.pdf. It's clearly PD-USGov, but it lacks verifiable attribution and isn't being used in an enwiki article. Should it be moved to Commons? Deleted? Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 09:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

For the second time User:JJMC89 bot has dubiously deleted File:50_Cent_-_Just_A_Lil_Bit_-_CD_cover.jpg from squatting position but not deleted it from Just a Lil Bit.--Penbat (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:FFD.

Now, if you're confused about an edit sum left when a non-free file is removed or you don't agree with an edit sum which was left, then it's OK to ask for clarification like you did here. However, you probably should wait for clarification before readding the disputed file like you did here. Sometimes edit sums can be brief and just contain links to other relevant pages, but that doesn't mean the removal of the file was not in accordance with relevant policy. In addition, if a file has been removed multiple times before, then there's probably a good policy-based reason for it being removed. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 00:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if this is described in detail somewhere nearby and I failed to find it. Please advise on the proper procedure to add an extra NFCC rationale to a file that already has one. As one example, I have attempted to use this: File:Yol Aularong - Yuvajon Kouge Jet - Cambodian Rocks (sample).ogg at a newly-created article where it is relevant, but was told that the file has no NFCC rationale for use at that new article. So I'd like to add one. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

See

WP:FURG for details including template requirments. ww2censor (talk

) 15:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi

WP:F5, so that should be sufficient time to at least start a discussion about the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 05:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Tom Thomson photos

Resolved

I am working on a FAC for Tom Thomson and in the process someone has raised the question of whether or not the images of him are in the public domain in the U.S. The entries for the images on the Library and Archives Canada website indicates that their copyrights are expired, but it's not clear if this is only referring to Canada. Could someone help me out in showing that these images are PD in America?

• File:TomThomson23.jpg, LAC indicates copyright expired, unknown photographer
• File:Young Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC indicates copyright expired, no photographer noted
• File:Profile of the painter Tom Thomson wearing a hat.jpg, LAC indicates copyright expired, no photographers noted
• File:Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC indicates copyright expired, photographer Franklin Carmichael who died in 1945. Not sure of date of first publication.
• File:Tom Thomson with fish.jpg, LAC indicates copyright expired, photographer Blair Laing and does not provide the date of death.
• File:Tom Thomson, standing on a rock fishing in moving water.jpg, LAC indicates copyright expired, no photographer noted

Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 01:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• I found instances of the photos being published early enough to qualify for
  URAA
  date. I updated the copyright info on the Commons. Here are the publications:

File:TomThomson23.jpg, LAC, published in Silcox & Town (1977)

File:Young Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC, published in Murray (1986)

File:Profile of the painter Tom Thomson wearing a hat.jpg, LAC, published in Murray (1986)

File:Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC, published in Little (1970), Murray (1986)

File:Tom Thomson with fish.jpg, LAC, published in Little (1970), Murray (1986)

File:Tom Thomson, standing on a rock fishing in moving water.jpg, LAC, published in Reid (1975) Tkbrett (✉) 19:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)