Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/September
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
I recently added File:Barker-Bill's-Trick-Shooting-game-screenshot.png as a screenshot to the article about Barker Bill's Trick Shooting. The file page for the screenshot includes a non-free use rationale and a {{Non-free game screenshot}} license tag. From adding this screenshot, there are the following questions:
- For non-free software and video games, is it acceptable to obtain screenshots from sites such as The Video Games Museum or MobyGames?
- For screenshots of non-free software and video games, assuming that the screenshot shows a normal and typical display from the software or game, is there a need to consider any copyright held by the individual who took the screenshot, or is acceptable to treat the copyright holder of the depicted game or software as the only copyright holder for a screenshot?
- (My understanding is that in general, the only copyright holder for a screenshot would be the copyright holder of the software or video game that is depicted in the screenshot. One of the answers in this discussion claims that a "photographer" who takes a video game screenshot does hold a copyright on the screenshot although there is also the copyright of the depicted game. However, from what I have seen, screenshots on Wikipedia have typically been labeled only with regard the copyright on the depicted game or software, and have not been labeled regarding any copyright held by the individual who took the screenshot.)
- --Elegie (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
- 1. Yes 2. I can't imagine that it could ever be argued that a valid fair use rationale that applied to the original copyright would somehow not apply to the screenshot itself. You could tie yourself up in knots trying to think of one but in practise a valid NFCC rationale would comfortably cover any use of the "screenshot taker copyright" to the same extent it covers the copyright in the original work. AlasdairEdits (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
This file and File:Johnny Hawke 1949.jpg were flagged by a bot as a WP:NFCC#9 violations, but they seems to have conflicting copyright licenses. Each file is licensed as {{PD-Australia}} tag which has a "Not PD in the US disclaimer added to it". So, if they need to be treated as WP:NFC, then they are going to need separate specific non-free use rationales for all their uses per WP:NFCC#10c, right? Many of the team photo's uses appear to be "decorative", so I'm not sure that valid rationales can be written for them. Perhaps Sticks66, the file's uploader, can clarify its licensing. If the files are really PD, then perhaps they should be moved to Commons if allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- The current copyright tag is probably correct as far as I can tell. The usage in mainspace biographic articles should have Template:Non-free biog-pic attached. Other decorative uses (such as in a userspace gallery) should unfortunatley be removed. AlasdairEdits (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Marchjuly is right, all uses of this image need a separate fair-use rationale adding to the image page. The PD-Australia tag should be retained to indicate that the image is PD is its country of origin. The process taken with File:Johnny Hawke 1949.jpg to upload a separate cropped image for each of the articles on the players is probably the best way to go. Nthep (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- @AlasdairEdits and Nthep: Thanks for taking a look. So, the question then is how to best go about cleaning up the excessive usage of the team photo. It is currently used on 15 seperate pages, but does not have a non-free use rationale for any. The individual player articles all use crops from the team photo (which too are lacking rationales by the way), so the non-free use of the team photo does not seemed justified in them. Removing from the userpage is also needed. So, that just leaves 1949 NSWRFL season where the image might possibly be used, but it's not clear if NFCC#8 can be justified since it's not really an article about the team itself per se. Finally, this might also need to be reduced per WP:NFCC#3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Marchjuly is right, all uses of this image need a separate fair-use rationale adding to the image page. The PD-Australia tag should be retained to indicate that the image is PD is its country of origin. The process taken with File:Johnny Hawke 1949.jpg to upload a separate cropped image for each of the articles on the players is probably the best way to go. Nthep (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Two of basically the same logo. The svg one is licensed as {{Non-free logo}} and the jpg is licensed as {{PD-logo}}. For reference, the jpg was just uploaded in good faith because the uploader seems to want to use in a userbox (see User talk:NetWitz#Non-free image use). It does not seem likely that both licenses can be corect. Is it possible that the file can be treated as PD? If so, the svg could be converted to "PD-logo" and moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- I would say given the detail on the logo (particularly the baseball stiching) it is a stretch to argue th merely simple geometric shapes and so falls under {{PD-logo}}. Treating as a non-free logo is the safer approach. AlasdairEdits (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks AlasdairEdits. That would mean there are two non-free files of essentially the same logo, but in different formats. There does not seem to be a need for two, so one probably needs to be deleted. Any opinion on which one that should be? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Personally I am quite surprised vector images are allowed to be uploaded as Non-Free Content given WP:IMAGERES but they do seem to be considered acceptable. Given that the vector comes direct from the mariners site and the .jpg comes via freelogos.net I would keep the .svg AlasdairEdits (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- There's been quite a bit of discussion about non-free SVGs over the years (see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 64#Non-free images and SVG Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 61#SVG non-free content, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 41#Is it time to explicitly address SVG images?, Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 31#SVG Logos, and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 2#SVG images for fair use are just a few at WT;NFCC, and there have been some here at MCQ as well), and it's one of those things that there is probably never going to a total agreement on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Florida license plates
Can File:Florida license plate.gif and File:Florida license plate In God We Trust.jpg converted to {{PD-FLGov}}? They are sourced to www
- Per {{PD-FLGov}} the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is not listed as one of the agencies permitted to claim copyright. Thus, public domain. No reason has been given why they are not public domain. AlasdairEdits (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
C. L. Brown
Hi, I'm trying to write an article in my sandbox and I want to use the portrait photo from this website. is it ok to use it? Ramesty (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- We have to presume that the photo is copyrighted unless we have evidence otherwise. At the website you linked to, this photo is shown as "Image courtesy of the Jeffcoat Photography Studio Museum"; so I'm guessing you need to contact the Museum and find out what you can. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like an opinion about File:4Hunnid Records logo.png before moving it to Commons. Is the logo original enough for copyright? --George Ho (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, a simple #4 with some plain text on the upright does not pass the threshold of originality for a US organisation. ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Twitter photo, taken of friend and on their twitter.
Hi, i work with someone that wants me to help them change their photo on Wikipedia, they have photos of them on their twitter account which is verified, can i upload the photos of them to Wikipedia and change their profile picture, or is there something else i have to do, or they have to do to change it?
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordenlewis (talk • contribs) 15:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jordenlewis: No, not unless the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer and not the subject of the photo, verifies their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. They could upload it to their own website with a license statement we accept, such as {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, which cannot forbid commercial or derivative uses, which means that anyone can use it for anything. Most images on twitter and social media webpages, and most other webpages are copyright to someone and as we take copyright status very seriously, we need to confirm the copyright permission. Unfortunately, being on a Twitter page does not do that. ww2censor (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Ok Thanks, what about if the photo was taken by the subject E.G selfie, or they gave their phone to someone to take a photo of them, can they then verify their permission by putting the licence statement such as {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} on twitter with the picture. Jordenlewis (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Jordenlewis: A selfie will be fine uploaded to one of their verifiable Twitter pages with the appropriate tag. However, unless there is a contact to transfer the copyright, it is the actual photographer who owns the copyright even if it was someone else's camera. ww2censor (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Ok Thanks, what about if the photo was taken by the subject E.G selfie, or they gave their phone to someone to take a photo of them, can they then verify their permission by putting the licence statement such as {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} on twitter with the picture. Jordenlewis (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
research paper diagram
sorry - i'm an absolute wikipedia newbie. i assume diagrams from research papers are unusable in wikipedia, right? eg http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/v18/n4/fig_tab/nsmb.2018_F1.html
if i want create an original work based of copyrighted work, how original does it have to be? could you please direct me to some samples?
thanks, SilverJaw (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is probably the wrong place to start. You might be better at Wikimedia Commons (and could benefit from at least knowing about it). Try Commons:COM:L.
- The difference is that Commons is there to be an open repository of freely-licensed content, available for re-use by anyone. If it's on Commons, then anyone can re-use it, for anything, even commercially (or someone has goofed, which is a possibility). That is not the goal of Wikipedia: the goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. In general, these two goals coincide, and Wikipedia offers a freely-licensed encyclopedia. But, in some cases there is no such free content and so "fair use" content might be employed on the encyclopedia instead - Wikipedia recognises that it can be better to give a more complete encyclopedia than a more free encyclopedia. Commons though is rigid - free or nothing.
- So, if you can, it's better to upload content to Commons. It gives a more useful resource to the world.
- If you can't, maybe you can upload it to Wikipedia alone, under fair use and subject to WP:NFC. This is complex and not somewhere to start out.
- Maybe you can talk to the author or copyright holder of a work and ask them for their permission, as a licence, to upload that work to Commons. This is often a successful strategy for all parties.
- Please keep asking questions though, and reading the background pages, because this stuff is well known to be complicated. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
i see. i hadn't made the connection between wikipedia and commons. thanks for the pointer and i'll try contacting the author. SilverJaw (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Macaque image no longer public domain
Apparently the US 9th circuit court has now ruled that the famous macaque selfie is the property of the photographer. PETA and the photographer came to an amicable settlement. I'm curious about why it is still up, in so many versions, on Wikimedia servers. I did tag some of the image talk pages with the recent news that of the ruling. Thoughts? See this LA Times article, another in the New York Times, and this article from the BBC.198.58.170.90 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- That's an issue for Commons, not here. --MASEM (t) 03:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- If it's not public domain, as now seems obvious, shouldn't we remove it from pages on the Wikipedia side? The copies on the Wikipedia side violate the very essence of the author's copyright-- i.e. the right to make copies. Wikipedia and Commons no longer have that right.198.58.170.90 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- There are still some legal complexities as a settlement is not the same as a case ruling. Commons needs to figure that out. Even though if Commons did remove it, we would very much likely still use a version of it under non-free, since the image is definitely the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- We'd use a very tiny version, not the high-res version that is up there, which is now blatant infringement. 198.58.170.90 (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- A low-res version would be required per WP:NFCC#3 if the file was non-free content, but there's not much we can do about a Commons file here on Wikipedia. You can be bold and remove the file from any articles/pages it's being used on if you like, but that's likely to be reverted as long as the file is licensed as PD. So, if you think the licensing is now incorrect, you need to resolve it on Commons since that's where the file is hosted. You can ask for opinions at c:COM:VP/C on how to best do this, or be bold and tag the file per c:COM:CSD or start a c:COM:DR discussion. If, by chance, the file is deleted from Commons, a low-res version can be uploaded locally as non-free content to Wikipedia if its usage meets WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- We'd use a very tiny version, not the high-res version that is up there, which is now blatant infringement. 198.58.170.90 (talk) 03:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- There are still some legal complexities as a settlement is not the same as a case ruling. Commons needs to figure that out. Even though if Commons did remove it, we would very much likely still use a version of it under non-free, since the image is definitely the subject of discussion. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- If it's not public domain, as now seems obvious, shouldn't we remove it from pages on the Wikipedia side? The copies on the Wikipedia side violate the very essence of the author's copyright-- i.e. the right to make copies. Wikipedia and Commons no longer have that right.198.58.170.90 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry but the above replies are confused. The previous judicial decision found that the copyright is not held by the monkey. It did not expressly consider whether the photo was in the public domain or whether the photographer holds a copyright. A settlement between PETA and David Slater has no legal impact outside of the parties involved and also says nothing about whether the image was in the public domain, because, again - that was not an issue in the case. The status of whether or not this image is public domain and can be treated as such by us therefore hasn't been affected by this news at all. So it would be incorrect to open deletion discussions or remove/downsize images from articles here on the basis of this news, which has no impact on the copyright status of the image. AlasdairEdits (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- One thing we can say with certainty is that the status of these images is unclear. Commons also has the rigid Precautionary Principle that "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." When there are international lawsuits flying about, that is significant doubt. These have to go from Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- That is precisely right.198.58.170.90 (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- It's no less clear than it was before the lawsuit was filed. There's no more significant doubt about the file than there was before PETA filed its ill-considered lawsuit that it's now scrambling to get out of, likely out of fear of having to pay attorney's fees. But if you think it's unclear, open a deletion discussion on Commons. Assuming the Ninth Circuit grants the requested vacatur, we'll be at the same posture we were during the last deletion request in February 2015 before the spurious lawsuit was filed.
- Either way, there's nothing to discuss on EnWikipedia, which is not hosting the file. TJRC (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
These discussions are not going anywhere. the recent settlement has not changed the status of this image, This image is hosted on Commons, so any deletion discussion or copyright status discussion should happen over there. AlasdairEdits (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)}}
New Stadium Design/Artist Impression
Hi, I'm currently working on a sandbox for new football stadium that is currently under construction. I have access to various design documents (as they are public record because it's a government project, although not public domain as they were created by a private company who did the design) that includes 2 low resolution (I've since cropped them to 450 wide x 250 high) 3d renders as a kind of "artists impression". 1 of the interior & 1 of the exterior. My question is about if it is appropriate/possible to use these two images for the article, and if so what criteria best apply. The stadium has only just begun construction so there is no ability to take photos of a non-existent interior or exterior. Thank you. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think the first thing you need to determine is whether the stadium is notable enough for a stand-alone article because it might make justifying non-free use a bit easier to do if it is. I am not sure if there are specific notability guidelines for buildings under construction, but WP:GNG lists the basic criterion that typically need to be met. Using the image in a sub-section of another article is not totally impossible, but it can be harder to justify non-free use per WP:NFCC#8 for such a usage than when the image is being used as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article. In any case, the copyright license that I think you should use is Template:Non-free architectural work and a non-free use rationale you could possibly use (if you want) is Template:Non-free use rationale 2, but you might prefer another template or even writing out your own rationale. If you want to see some examples of what others have done, check Category:Non-free architectural works, but try and remember that WP:OTHERIMAGE is not a justification for non-free use. One last thing is that you shouldn't upload anything that is non-free content until it's ready to be added to the article namespace; otherwise, it's likely going to get tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5 because of WP:NFCC#7 or WP:NFCC#9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation. You have a good point regarding notability. I'll look into that, while working on the sandbox article. I will also keep in mind to not upload anything until the article itself is ready. Thank you. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Can this be relicensed as {{PD-logo}}? The company is based in the US and this appears to be text with a 3d-effect. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason why not AlasdairEdits (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Deletion request
Request for the deletion of two images as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punith331994 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- HiPunith331994. Deletion requests are not typically made on this page. Moreover, nobody here will be able to determine whether the files you're referring to actually need to be deleted without knowing exactly which files they are. Can you provide the names of the files so that others can at least look at them to see if there's a problem? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Punith331994: I don't see that you uploaded any images here on the enwiki, but I do see that in 2012 on the commons you uploaded several images but they all seem to be properly licensed, so any issue you have will need to be dealt with on the commons. So what's your problem? BTW, you cannot just decide to withdraw your images once you have released them under a license we accept. ww2censor (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- See also Special:Log/Punith331994. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
deletion request
I found this image as a profile picture on Twitter: File:Elsamni.jpg. I do not know how to tag it so the copyright is ok with wikipedia. Source: http://www.twitter.com/elsamni — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulRahman14 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 September 2017
- AbdulRahman14: Because there is no verification of the copyright status of the image you would need to get the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer, to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Neither you nor we can decide the copyright tag to apply until we know under what copyright the image is being released by the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Pictures of my Grandfather for an article about his life (Archie League)
Dear Wikipedia,
Why do the pictures continue to be deleted with no comments?
First some were deleted and some were saved, then the others were deleted with no further explanation.
I would like to challenge this opinion as I have received permission from the newspaper they were copied from to publish them on Wikipedia.
Others pictures were family photos taken by my Uncle (now deceased). What are the next steps.
Sincerely,
William Byrd
Bestword57 (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Images are almost never deleted without comment, although if you are not able regular editor you may not have realized where the comments appeared. Are you talking about these images?:
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- If so, the deletion discussion is here:
- Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Bestword57--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
When I click your link, I get the message: This page does not currently exist. You can search for this page title in other pages or create this page.
Thanks.
-William
- Sorry, I malformed the link, now fixed. --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Bestword57 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Bestword57: the link you want is Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Bestword57. Nthep (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) ::@Bestword57: William, Nthep has provided the correct link, but you replied on 13 August last. You will see that the deleting admin tells you to send the permission to the commons OTRS team but you will have to be patient as the OTRS are currently backlogged at 47 days. ww2censor (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Bestword57:Just as an FYI, and sorry in advance for what may be discouraging news, if I were to see the permission statement from Mark Russell in an OTRS permission filing I would not accept it. I do understand that you asked for permission to reprint the article and you got a response that says "this is fine. Permission granted." But that newspaper may have no idea that you are not simply looking to reprint it personally or in a blog, but wish to post it in one of the most highly trafficked websites in the world, and furthermore that it can be subsequently reused by anyone for any purpose anywhere for whatever reason. It is not uncommon for a newspaper to grant permission to an individual thinking it is a not a big deal but reconsider when they find the scope of the license. The copyright holder must fill out a permission statement consistent with the wording in the box on this page (and it is best to use the exact wording):OTRS
- (edit conflict) ::@Bestword57: William, Nthep has provided the correct link, but you replied on 13 August last. You will see that the deleting admin tells you to send the permission to the commons OTRS team but you will have to be patient as the OTRS are currently backlogged at 47 days. ww2censor (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
There's not much information given on China's TOO in c:COM:TOO#China (PRC), so I'm not sure whether this would be considered protected in the country of origin, but it seems like it might be OK as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} and kept locally on Wikipedia. If this does need to be non-free then it is missing a non-free use rationale and was only previously being used in User:TonyHuang/sandbox. This means it will either eventually be deleted per WP:F5 or WP:F6, Any feedback would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think these small deviations from standard lettering would create a copyright in the US, so I'd concur with PD-ineligible-USonly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've gone ahead and converted the licensing to "PD-ineligible-USonly". Please correct any mistakes I made or add anything I might've forgotten to add. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why this needs to be licensed as non-free content when it seems simple enough for {{PD-simple}} or even {{PD-logo}}. Even if it's copyrightable in Finland (the home of HIM (Finnish band)), it still seems OK to be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. Any reason why this needs to be non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The licensing for this image indicates that it has been effectively placed into the public domain by the copyright holder. Indeed, the image has also been tagged (possibly by a bot) as being an image that would be OK to copy to Wikimedia Commons. At the same time, it is not clear that the SoundEdit software icon was in fact placed into the public domain or that the uploader is the copyright holder. Right now, the icon is used in the main infobox in the SoundEdit article. (I recently added an infobox to the article though the icon was present in the article before then.) Would it be possible to treat the image as non-free content (such as with the {{Non-free use rationale icon}} rationale and the {{non-free icon}} license tag)? --Elegie (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, Elegie. Please convert the license to use the non-free license tag and rationale. There is no evidence that the copyright holder of SoundEdit has released this into the public domain. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Finnusertop Thanks for the feedback. The license info for the image has been adjusted accordingly. --Elegie (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Does this logo for California State University need to be treated as non-free content or can it be converted to {{PD-CAGov}}? It will have to be removed from Template:Portal/doc/all per WP:NFCC#9 if it needs to be non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- PD-CAGOV is pretty ambiguous and hard to understand. My instinct says it is not covered by PD-CAGOV but think we would need someone familiar with CA copyright law and state law to get a proper answer say which we are unlikley to get. As a starting point it would be good to find out when was the seal designed? if the CU system has been in place since 1857 there is a goodce it is just PD by reason of age. AlasdairEdits (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- The seal was designed in 1962 and CSU asserts copyright here. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks AlasdairEdits and StarryGrandma for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- The seal was designed in 1962 and CSU asserts copyright here. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This file is licensed as {{non-free biog-pic}} and I've tagged it with {{rfu}} because of File:Portrait of Julia Abigail Fletcher Carney.jpg, but given the fact that Carney dies in 1908, it seems likely that the file might be PD. Unfortunately, the source provide for the image seems to be a possible Wikipedia mirror of some kind and I can really tell anything about the image other than it appears to be quite old. If anyone can figure out a way to sort this out, please remove the rfu tag and change the licensing accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've replaced the image in the article with one (a less good one) from Commons PD because it was published in 1903. Thincat (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
If the primary BMW roundel/logo (File:BMW.svg) is considered to be PD, then it seems that the BMW Sauber F1 logo should also be PD since the the only possible copyrightable element is the roundel itself. Is there a reason the team logo needs to be non-free content, while the files in c:Category:BMW roundel logos are not? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think you have a pretty good grasp of {{PD-logo}} as evidenced by your other questions here. For cases like this where the only question is whether it applies or not your judgement is clearly good and you can probably be BOLD and make the changes yourself going forward. There is always a margin of uncertainty but your analysis above is exactly right afaikt and as you say no reason it should be considered non-free based on our current policies. AlasdairEdits (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair Use
File:DrThaddeusLottSr.jpg This is the image I intended to add to the Thaddeus S. Lott, Sr. page. How can I correctly tag this image under fair use considering that he passed away in 2015? Thanks. a_cloud 06:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACloud (talk • contribs)
- Hi ACloud. Wikipedia does allow the use of copyrighted images as non-free content. It's similar to and based upon the concept of fair use, but it's more restrictive by design. Per item #10 of WP:NFCI, Wikipedia does allow non-free images of deceased individuals to be allowed to be used as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the individual, but there is a bit of a caveat. Each use of a non-free image is required to satisfy all ten of the non-free content use criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#1 which requires us to use a freely licensed/public domain equivalent image when one is available or when there is a reasonable expection that one can be created. For a living individual, this pretty much means that a non-free image is almost never allowed except in certain cases such as explained in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. This is because it is assumed that in most cases even if no freely licensed equivalent images already exists, there is a reasonable expectation that one can be created by someone at some point in time, possibly by even taking a new photo. Obviously for a deceased individual it's impossible to take a new photo, but that does not necessarily mean that a previously taken photo has not be been released under a free/PD license or can be released under such a license. All Wikipedia asks is that you make a reasonable effort to find such an image. The definition of "reasonable" is a bit subjective, but it usually means something more that a quick Internet search for images; some editors actually reach out to copyright holders of images per WP:BRP to see if the copyright holder can be persuaded to release the image under a license suitable for Wikipedia per WP:DONATEIMAGE. Of course, Wikipedia does expect you to go around pressuring people to release their copyrighted content, and things tend to be OK as long as you make a reasonable effort. Anyway, the EXIF data of the photo you've uploaded says that the copyright holder is someone named Rocky Kneten. Perhaps there's a way for you to contact the copyright holder to ask that the image be release under a free license? If not or if you already tried this and were unsuccessful, then licensing the file using the template {{Non-free biog-pic}} might be an option. If you do license the file as non-free content, you're going to also need to provide a non-free use rationale explaining how the file's use satisfies all ten of the aforementioned NFCCP criteria, and you will need to provide such a rationale for each use of the file. Please note that all ten criteria need to be satisfied for each use as explained in WP:JUSTONE. There are various templates you can use for rationales and template {{Non-free use rationale biog}} probaby would work well for this file. This is a lot of information to digest, and non-free use can be a bit tricky, so if you have any questions, please feel free to ask them here. Someone will help you out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- This website https://www.rockykneten.com/ABOUT-ME/1 looks like it is the photographer in question from Houston, where the subject of the photo was the School District Superintendent per the HISD in the metadata. Try contacting him but that image is certainly copyright but it's use as non-free most likely fails WP:NFCC#2 because he is a professional photographer, so commercial consideration must be taken into account. You could also ask the school district is they have any freely licensed images of him. Good luck. Do remember that even though it is nice to have a photo in an article it not actually necessary nor a requirement; many biographic articles don't have any image of the subject. ww2censor (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi again ACloud. It appears that you previously uploaded this same photo to Wikimedia Commons as c:File:DrThaddeusLottSr.jpg. It also looks as if someone (perhaps you?) sent in a premissions' email to c:COM:OTRS, but that the file was eventually deleted because the photo's license could not be verified. Anyway, the OTRS ticket number file is 2017052310005911, so if you feel that file might have been deleted by mistake or that you can further clarify it's licensing, you can ask for help at c:COM:OTRSN. Otherwise, you can (as Ww2censor suggests above) try and contact the school district to see if the there might be another photo which it holds the copyright on that it wouldn't mind releasing under a free license. Non-free use might still be an option in the end, but you should try to find a free equivalent first. Regardless of any of this, the file will be deleted if it remains without a copyright license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Marchjuly and Ww2censor for all of this information, I did not know that I still had access to the deleted photo page, so I will remove the other copy. I did send in the email and I will continue with your advice to OTRS and/or to the other options you have given. a_cloud 05:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi again ACloud. It appears that you previously uploaded this same photo to Wikimedia Commons as c:File:DrThaddeusLottSr.jpg. It also looks as if someone (perhaps you?) sent in a premissions' email to c:COM:OTRS, but that the file was eventually deleted because the photo's license could not be verified. Anyway, the OTRS ticket number file is 2017052310005911, so if you feel that file might have been deleted by mistake or that you can further clarify it's licensing, you can ask for help at c:COM:OTRSN. Otherwise, you can (as Ww2censor suggests above) try and contact the school district to see if the there might be another photo which it holds the copyright on that it wouldn't mind releasing under a free license. Non-free use might still be an option in the end, but you should try to find a free equivalent first. Regardless of any of this, the file will be deleted if it remains without a copyright license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- This website https://www.rockykneten.com/ABOUT-ME/1 looks like it is the photographer in question from Houston, where the subject of the photo was the School District Superintendent per the HISD in the metadata. Try contacting him but that image is certainly copyright but it's use as non-free most likely fails WP:NFCC#2 because he is a professional photographer, so commercial consideration must be taken into account. You could also ask the school district is they have any freely licensed images of him. Good luck. Do remember that even though it is nice to have a photo in an article it not actually necessary nor a requirement; many biographic articles don't have any image of the subject. ww2censor (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this is the uploader's own work; It looks more like non-free content. However, I am unable to find any information about the file which might make it possible to convert to {{Non-free logo}}. I find the file used on a come of webpages, but nothing official looking and they probably took the image from Wikipedia. Any suggestions on what to do here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Tencent Games logo
Is the logo used on the article Tencent Games, c:File:Tencent_Games_Logo_Resized.png licensed appropriately for use on enwiki? The uploader claims it as "Own work" which seems unlikely. Can this be used under fair use instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mduvekot (talk • contribs) 23:46, 23 September 2017
- Probably not and yes to both questions. If you want to use it in the enwiki article you will need to upload it here as a non-free image. I'll tag it for deletion on the commons. ww2censor (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Photos of toys
Japan considers toys to be utilitarian objects, but the US considers them to be protected by copyright (see c:COM:TOYS for reference). File:Mego Acroyear Red Number 1.jpg, File:Microman Clear M101 George Number 5.jpg, and File:Magne Power Microman 001 Arthur Number 1.jpg are all photos of toys from someone's personal collection. The photos themselves can be released as PD by the photographer, but the toys are obviously the focus of the photos so de minimis cannot be argued. Would these toys be considered copyrightable thus making the photo a derivative work requiring permission from the toy manufacturer for any image of it to be released under a free license? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Marchjuly. The answer is yes, not just copyrightable but already under copyright. I've worried about toy pictures myself. c:COM:TOYS says
When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.
The reference given there is to a decision that saysSince the toys were authored by a Japanese national and first "published" (i.e. sold) in Japan, they enjoyed copyright protection under United States law from the moment they were created
. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Question
I want to upload a picture (really well taken)-for an article-that I found on Instagram, which was uploaded there by someone I can contact via e-mail. Is there a format to send this person for the permission? How should I do? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Cornerstonepicker: assuming they are the copyright holder, which is usually the photographer and not the subject of the image, get them for follow the procedure found at WP:CONSENT but please be patient as the OTRS Team are very backlogged almost 50 days. ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Thank you. I have doubts with WP:COPYREQ. Should I ask the person to send the consent letter to the WM e-mail... or just ask for permission? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Actually Cornerstonepicker you are better to have them use the "Interactive Release Generator" over on the commons at c:COM:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries and an OTRS agent will provide them with a ticket number which means the request is in the queue. Then you can upload the image to the commons and add the template {{subst:OP}} (means OTRS pending) to the image with the license the copyright holder has agreed to. ww2censor (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Thank you. I have doubts with WP:COPYREQ. Should I ask the person to send the consent letter to the WM e-mail... or just ask for permission? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
_-_Logo.png){kind=link}
This is licensed as {{self}}, but it looks non-free. The file's description states "This was used by the Barton College in the 1990s, however was privately designed and never copyrighted. This was printed on the back of the 1994 copy of the Bartonian in the form of a white outline which was digitised and coloured in 2017." which may be true, but I'm not sure that does not necessarily mean "not copyrighted" or "self"; moreover, if the original white outline is really protected by copyright, then the colorized version itself may be considered a WP:Derivative work but the original copyright cannot be ignored. I am aware of {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}} and {{PD-US-1989}}, but none of those apply to works published in 1994. If the logo was privately designed, then the person who designed the logo should still hold the copyright on it, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yup. The 1994 version is copyrighted. Any derivative works not licensed by the copyright holder are copyright violations. I've deleted this file as a clear copyright violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking on this Orangemike. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Guilden Morden boar drawing
Would someone please help me with the appropriate US tagging for this drawing? It was drawn between 1882 and 1883, by (most likely) someone who died in 1891, and was first published in 1977, in the United Kingdom. In the UK it became PD in 1961, due to life + 70. My sense is that the correct US tag is {{PD-US-URAA}}, as it was first published outside of the US, never registered in the US, and PD by 1996 in the UK. However, as the US rule on unpublished works is life + 70, I wonder if a different tag is warranted; if the drawing was also PD in the US by 1961, it would not have been subject to copyright protections when first published (in the UK) in 1977. The Guilden Morden boar article is currently a featured article contender, so trying to make sure I nail down the appropriate tag. Thanks in advance for any help! --Usernameunique (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- While this work is very likely in the public domain in the UK, it may, or may not, be in the public domain in the US. The first question to consider is if this drawing has ever been published in this or any other work with permission of the copyright holder or their heirs before 2003? If not, then for the purposes of US copyright, it is an unpublished work, and as such can use the {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1891}}{{PD-US-unpublished}} tags on Commons. If the 1977 publication in Medieval Archaeology was without the permission of the heirs but it was published later in some other publication with the permission of the copyright holder or their heirs, then it may still be protected by US copyright, as an unauthorized publication would not be the first publication.
If the 1977 publication of this drawing was an authorized publication, then we have to consider US copyright formalities. The URAA restores copyright protection to works first published outside the US that lost their US copyright due to failure to comply with US formalities. I think you are correct that as this work was PD in the UK in 1996, it would almost certainly not have been eligible for copyright restoration by the URAA, so I think we can ignore the URAA. Thus, if the drawing was published in 1977 with authorization, all we need to know is if the work retained its US copyright protection because the work did comply with US copyright formalities. For example, did the 1977 publication of Medieval Archaeology contain a valid copyright notice? If not, and the publication of the drawing was authorized, then you can use the {{PD-old-auto-1996|deathyear=1891}} tag on Commons. —RP88 (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for explaining that, RP88. This will require some guesswork, but here goes. As far as I know (and having researched the boar extensively), the only publication that contains that image is the 1977 Medieval Archaeology publication. It simply said that "The British Museum has" the drawing, without stating how it was obtained; the most likely explanation is that when the actual boar in the drawing was donated to the museum in 1904, the drawing was donated along with it. It seems quite unlikely that the family, 73 years later, would have been asked for permission to publish the drawing, although I suppose theoretically copyright could have been donated to the BM along with the drawing.
- Leaving aside the issue of authorization for now, the 1977 Medieval Archaeology journal contains two mentions of copyright. First, on the inside front cover are the words "All contributions to Medieval Archaeology are COPYRIGHT. Applications to reproduce them, in whole or in part, should be addressed, in the first instance, to the Secretary, Society for Medieval Archaeology, University College, Gower Street, London, WCIE 6BT." Second, an otherwise blank page preceding the contents states "© World copyright—The Society for Medieval Archaeology". Would that constitute a valid copyright notice? If so, what other steps would Medieval Archaeology have had to take to solidify the copyright of the drawing? As far as I can tell, they did not register the journal in the US in 1977 (Copyright Entries). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- For a valid copyright notice the year of publication (1977) would have to have been printed in close proximity. It could also be quibbled as to whether The Society for Medieval Archeology was the valid copyright holder in the US. I think PD in the US.[1] Thincat (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Thincat. The year is nowhere near either mention of copyright; indeed, "1977" is not printed on either page. Would the correct tag then be {{PD-old-auto-1996|deathyear=1891}}? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think the tags you have at present are OK but what you suggest looks perfect to me and has the advantage of simplicity and brevity. I think some words of explanation might help, possibly by referring to this discussion. Not that my opinion is of any authority but the information you have provided is helpful in establishing the situation. Thincat (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks again, both Thincat and RP88; this has been extremely helpful. I have updated the tag, and added a link to this discussion in the summary (I'll update it when this discussion is archived). --Usernameunique (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thincat and RP88, is there a version of the template where the second part says something to the effect of "it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities ..." instead of "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice ..."? As per discussion at FAC, "the new tag retains the 'without copyright notice' verbiage which is not strictly speaking correct (it clearly had a copyright notice, even if that notice may not be compatible with US ones). Perhaps a tweak to the tag wording is in order?" Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think the wording used by the PD-old-auto-1996 template on Commons accurately reflects US law, as under US law a defective notice is not a copyright notice. However, Commons does have a template you can use if you need to be more explicit about your assertion of defective notice. If you believe the drawing is PD in the US because of a defective copyright notice you could switch to using the {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1891}}{{PD-US-defective notice}} license tags. —RP88 (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I was taking "no notice" to mean "no valid notice". I have found Template:PD-US-defective notice but if you use that you'll again need a separate tag for UK. It provides the information "Additionally, foreign works created outside the US are subject to copyright restoration even with a defective notice." which doesn't apply here because the drawing was PD in the UK in 1996 so URAA was inapplicable anyway. The hierarchy of commons PD US copyright tags is at Category:PD US license tags if you want to look around. This all rather confirms my view that it's best to avoid submitting articles to WP:FAC – you'll stand a better chance at WP:CSD#G1! Thincat (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, the wording of PD-US-defective notice does assume publication in the US, so it isn't a perfect solution. However, the logic is applicable to foreign works that did not have their copyright restored by the URAA. Assuming the work is PD in the US due to defective notice, I think the current PD-old-auto-1996 tag is fine for Commons. Maybe just expand the permissions note to say that the lack of notice is due to a defective notice? —RP88 (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, these licence tags are helpful by discouraging people from making up their own copyright criteria but they fall short with awkward situations such as this. Thincat (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Thincat and RP88. An awkward situation indeed. Sticking with the current tag for now, though depending on FAC feedback I may change it. I have also expanded the permissions note as suggested. It now reads:
- "Drawing is in the public domain in Britain and the United States. Fordham died in 1891, placing it in the public domain in Britain in 1961. When published there 16 years later, in 1977, the publication did not meet requirements to establish copyright in the United States. First, if no permission to publish it from Fordham's heirs was sought—and being in the public domain in Britain such seeking of permission is unlikely—the drawing would be considered an unpublished work in the United States; created by an author who died before 1947 and not published in authorised form before 2003, it would thereby be in the public domain in the United States. Second, even in the event that permission was actually sought from Fordham's heirs, the 1977 publication did not contain a copyright notice adequate to establish copyright in the United States. For one, although the journal contained the statement "© World copyright—The Society for Medieval Archaeology" on the page facing the contents, no year was specified. Another problem is that the publication does not appear to have been registered in the United States, being omitted from the 1977 Catalog of Copyright Entries.
- Yes, these licence tags are helpful by discouraging people from making up their own copyright criteria but they fall short with awkward situations such as this. Thincat (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, the wording of PD-US-defective notice does assume publication in the US, so it isn't a perfect solution. However, the logic is applicable to foreign works that did not have their copyright restored by the URAA. Assuming the work is PD in the US due to defective notice, I think the current PD-old-auto-1996 tag is fine for Commons. Maybe just expand the permissions note to say that the lack of notice is due to a defective notice? —RP88 (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Well, I was taking "no notice" to mean "no valid notice". I have found Template:PD-US-defective notice but if you use that you'll again need a separate tag for UK. It provides the information "Additionally, foreign works created outside the US are subject to copyright restoration even with a defective notice." which doesn't apply here because the drawing was PD in the UK in 1996 so URAA was inapplicable anyway. The hierarchy of commons PD US copyright tags is at Category:PD US license tags if you want to look around. This all rather confirms my view that it's best to avoid submitting articles to WP:FAC – you'll stand a better chance at WP:CSD#G1! Thincat (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think the wording used by the PD-old-auto-1996 template on Commons accurately reflects US law, as under US law a defective notice is not a copyright notice. However, Commons does have a template you can use if you need to be more explicit about your assertion of defective notice. If you believe the drawing is PD in the US because of a defective copyright notice you could switch to using the {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=1891}}{{PD-US-defective notice}} license tags. —RP88 (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thincat and RP88, is there a version of the template where the second part says something to the effect of "it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities ..." instead of "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice ..."? As per discussion at FAC, "the new tag retains the 'without copyright notice' verbiage which is not strictly speaking correct (it clearly had a copyright notice, even if that notice may not be compatible with US ones). Perhaps a tweak to the tag wording is in order?" Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks again, both Thincat and RP88; this has been extremely helpful. I have updated the tag, and added a link to this discussion in the summary (I'll update it when this discussion is archived). --Usernameunique (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think the tags you have at present are OK but what you suggest looks perfect to me and has the advantage of simplicity and brevity. I think some words of explanation might help, possibly by referring to this discussion. Not that my opinion is of any authority but the information you have provided is helpful in establishing the situation. Thincat (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Thincat. The year is nowhere near either mention of copyright; indeed, "1977" is not printed on either page. Would the correct tag then be {{PD-old-auto-1996|deathyear=1891}}? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- For a valid copyright notice the year of publication (1977) would have to have been printed in close proximity. It could also be quibbled as to whether The Society for Medieval Archeology was the valid copyright holder in the US. I think PD in the US.[1] Thincat (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- For more information, see discussion here." --Usernameunique (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I am the copyright holder of a file and I wish to grand Wikimedia Commons the exclusive use of this file. How should I do it?
I took a photograph of a computer board built by MasPar. I am the copyright holder of this photograph, but I wish to upload this photograph to Wikimedia Commons so that it may be added to the Wiki page in question.
In short, I am the copyright holder of a file and I wish to grand Wikimedia Commons the exclusive use of this file. How should I do it?
--24.201.107.30 (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- By far, the easiest way to do this is to register yourself as a user (the same credentials work on all WMF sites), then you can upload directly at Commons to offer as a free self-made image.
- However, when you say "exclusive use" of the image, that does not meet the requirements for Commons or what we consider as a free image. The image must be reusable and modifiable by any other entity, we cannot just restrict that to Commons. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- Understood. Thank you for your answer. --24.201.107.30 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Almost certain that this does not need to be licensed as non-free given that the Canadian flag is the only element which seem could possibly be copyrighted, but File:Flag of Canada (Pantone).svg is {{PD-Canada}}. I'm only not sure which license should be used for this logo. {{PD-Canada}}, {{PD-logo}}, a combination of both? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Was wondering if File:Distingbanner4.svg needs to be non-free or can it be converted to {{PD-CAGov}}. If it needs to be non-free, then it's been tagged with {{di-missing some article links}} since February 2011 and still is missing a non-free use rationale for Marc and Eva Stern Math and Science School. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Seems simple enough for {{PD-logo}} (basically the same as File:Democrazia Cristiana.svg and File:DC Party Logo (1943-1968).svg) or at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} (if not below Italy's TOO). If it needs to be non-free, it's missing a non-free use rationale for List of Secretaries of Christian Democracy (Italy) and I'm almost positive that one cannot be written for that type of usage. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
This one also seems {{PD-logo}} or {{PD-simple}} unless it's possible that bottom of the "C" might be considered copyrightable. I don't really what c:COM:TOO#Colombia means by "apparent to the eye" and how orif it applies to this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair use of film posters
Can someone please point me to policy/guideline/consensus on fair use as it relates to film posters? According to {{Non-free movie poster}}, non-free posters should be used "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself" and not "solely for illustration". But this is clearly not how we operate: I've just played a quick game of "Think of a film and put it in the search box" and every single example I can think of has a non-free poster illustrating its infobox. GoldenRing (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Film posters are used in infoboxes so that people who work better with visuals than text can recognize that the article is about a specific topic. {{Non-free use rationale poster}} does mention "and identification" in this sense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Also see WP:NFCI, #1, and its footnote. --MASEM (t) 15:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Also also, for a film to have a standalone article, it must be notable, and to be notable there must be secondary sources discussing the film, which outside of very rare cases, is going to be reviews of the film. So there is implicitly critical commentary about the film if it is a standalone article that has a infobox that the poster is used in. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Henry Mills (Once Upon a Time) Article Infobox photo update question
I would like to update the Henry Mills (Once Upon a Time) Article Infobox photo but I don't know what to use as a copyright when uploading the promotional image I want to use of Andrew J West portraying adult Henry since Andrew a main actor since Adult Henry is the current central Character for this season. Here is a link to the image I would like to use
http://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/40700000/Once-Upon-a-Time-Henry-Mills-Season-7-Official-Picture-once-upon-a-time-40727757-375-500.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rylerkit (talk • contribs)
- <Trying to resist temptation to rant about the wikitext talkpage system> Seems like a reasonable use of a non-free image. So you want to add it as a non-free image, you go "non-free image"-->"excerpt from a copyrighted work" if you are using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks
What should I do in terms of permission for the photo?
Hello,
I noticed that the photo Alexander_N_Chumakov_at_Songshan_Forum.jpg (File:Alexander_N_Chumakov_at_Songshan_Forum.jpg) is missing at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Alexander_N_Chumakov_at_Songshan_Forum.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1 (section is called 'Creating File:Alexander N Chumakov at Songshan Forum.jpg'). I believe the permission was already sent to Wikipedia (in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dserge01#File_permission_problem_with_File:Alexander_N_Chumakov_at_Songshan_Forum.jpg). What can I do now to bring the photograph back?
Regards,
Dmitry Sergeev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dserge01 (talk • contribs)
- Greetings, @Dserge01:. You need to send evidence of permission to WP:OTRS I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
File:Win8 TM compilation.png
File:Win8 TM compilation.png is so small that it's completely unreadable. Can someone restore the large version of this file? 93.139.81.157 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that this image needs to be at the original resolution to be readable at all. That said, I am not convinced that all of these panels are needed to illustrate what Task Manager looks like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
- Why does it need to be readable? It looks to me like an image illustrating a layout. It could be lorem ipsum filler text and it would still illustrate the point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- I also have serious issue with why a detailed image like this is necessary. NEarly all the points highlighted in the rationale for keeping it are things easily described by text (the rationale's doing it right there). The single window of the main task manager in W8 is certainly fine and all the other points can be discussed in prose. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- Why does it need to be readable? It looks to me like an image illustrating a layout. It could be lorem ipsum filler text and it would still illustrate the point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)