Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Sosumi sound file

Sosumi ("so, sue me") is a half-second sound file, once used in Apple OS as a bleep sound. It has been uploaded to Enwiki at File:Sosumi.mp3 with a "Trademark" tag (originally a different tag). The uploader User:Jibblesnark86 and myself would like clarity if this is permissible, and what kind of tag should it have. Thank you. I think the uploader doesn't want to be sued! -- GreenC 15:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Since no-one else answered so far, maybe my non-answer can generate some form of discussion: This could be below the US threshold of originality, but unfortunately I am not familiar with any example of the threshold of originality of sounds. The quickest of searches does not unearth any relevant Commons discussions either, but there may well be something there that my search terms didn't catch. Felix QW (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the feedback. That rationale might be included in the fair use. Assuming User:Jibblesnark86 still wants to go for it as the uploader. -- GreenC 17:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's PD-ineligible. A good set of reference points is https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/ , what the Copyright Office rejected or eventually was argued into accepting, and there's a category of sound recordings. https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/td-ameritrade.pdf and https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/intel-spiral.pdf are four- and five-second clips they were argued into accepting, and https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/American-Airlines-App-Sounds.pdf was a pair of one-second clips they rejected. Sosumi is 0.2 seconds long, and there doesn't seem to be any complexity that would make it stand out. They mention their standards are “Elements that determine the sufficiency and creativity of sound recordings include the simultaneous or sequential number of sounds, the length of the recording, and the creativity perceptibly expressed in creating, fixing, and manipulating the sounds.” Relative to the multiple note, multiple second long tracks that got approval, I can't see this one getting copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the Review Board link - I don't know how I never came across it! Felix QW (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Song lyrics translations

There is a dispute about the admissibility of translated song lyrics at a) Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and b) Es kam ein Herr zum Schlößli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The source for a) is https://stihi.ru/2024/08/29/5879, for b) it's https://stihi.ru/2018/08/15/9373 . My reading of the Copyright notices on those pages prevents their use at Wikipedia. I've raised the matter with the editor who placed those translations into the articles, User:Tamtam90 (who made several uncivil remarks in their edit summaries), on my talk page. They claim to be the author of those translations and they point to a different Copyright notice in the footnote of https://o.stihi.ru/ which doesn't cover Wikipedia's requirements either. That website has a page on "Certificate of publication" which doesn't address Creative Commons or GNU licenses at all. What's to be done? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The way that could make sense apparently would be if Tamtam90 is С. Павлов. If so, the user could provide evidence to VRT. The vague reference to a discussion on Wikidata is not linked. A search did not find something like that there. However, there is something on Wikisource [1]. Not sure why the person who spotted the problem seemed to leave it there. Notifying User:Vladis13: can you please bring some light on this matter? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

s:ru:User:Tamtam90 is С.Павлов. I put the pages of his translations up for deletion, because, obviously, on the https://stihi.ru there is no notice that this is a free license; on the contrary, it says that the rights are reserved by the author. There I explained this in detail to the user and recommended improving the license on the site by indicating CC-BY, and using the VRTS system to solve all problems. The user said that he sent a request to VRTS there. And also I made a remark to the user there.
Wikisource Rules allow to use a different way for translations created and published in Wikisource, so this automatically licensed under CC-BY. - Just need to indicate the user as author of the translation and setup the CC-BY license template. This is what was done, example. Vladis13 (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Tamtam90, I would advise in order to avoid the non-free license on the stihi.ru, to publish the english translation in en.Wikisource (s:en:Wikisource:Translations#Wikisource_original_translations). After, in en.Wikipedia to set the link to this translation in en.Wikisource. Vladis13 (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Vladis13, the only reason why I still haven't published my English translations in Wikisource is: there are only 5-10 of them. So, when you approve that my "continuing" translation wouldn't meet any further deletion nightmares, I will start to publish my works in en.wikisource.org (however, the link to stihi.ru must be saved in Wikisource, as I understood). --Tamtam90 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Не уверен, что понял ваш ответ, Google Translate переводит не идеально. Если вы указываете ссылку на stihi.ru, где нет свободной лицензии совместимой с Фондом Викимедия, то это вводит в заблуждение участников и вы получаете запросы на удаление. Именно поэтому я рекомендую разместить ваши переводы в Викитеке, где они будут под свободной лицензией. Я не имею отношения к en.wikisource. Нет никакого ограничения на количество публикуемых переводов. Vladis13 (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

For the benefit of non-Russian speakers, a Google translation: I'm not sure I understood your answer, Google Translate doesn't translate perfectly. If you link to stihi.ru, which doesn't have a free license compatible with the Wikimedia Foundation, it misleads participants and you get requests to remove it. That's why I recommend posting your translations on Wikisource, where they will be under a free license. I have nothing to do with en.wikisource. There is no limit on the number of translations you can publish. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• My ticket permission see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tamtam90. Is that enough, to recall these nominations? --Tamtam90 (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• As for the two aforementioned songs, two links to Wikisource has been added to the pages, to their last section ("References" or "External links"). Is there any other reason, still to keep this nomination "open"?--Tamtam90 (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg

File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg has been used on a few pages now, two of which I've since reverted. It's been labeled as an "official" photo of the 119th United States Congress even though it hasn't yet been uploaded on Congress.gov or another official government website, since the 119th Congress has yet to start. It's only been uploaded on Representative-elect Hamadeh's newly-created "official" Twitter account, which leads me to believe that there may be an issue with copyright, and it might not yet be public domain (if it's the official photo in the end). AG202 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The file was uploaded to Commons so it would probably be better to ask about it at c:COM:VPC. Personally, though, this does seem like a case of "too soon" in an image licensing sense given that Hamadeh isn't officially a US congressman until they take their oath of office and formally assume their duties. Hamadeh could, if they want, simply agree to give their consent by posting they're releasing the image under one of these licenses on their X account or sending a c:COM:CONSENT email to Wikimedia VRT, but I don't think they or anyone else can claim {{PD-USGov-Congress}} just yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and I've since started a thread on Commons. AG202 (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Too soon? He's a member-elect and members-elect take their official photos during the orientation during the lame duck session. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue is that it hasn't yet been published by House.gov. Does a congressperson, edit: congressperson-elect in particular, posting an image solely on social media count as public domain? Does it count as a work of the U.S. federal government? That's what led me to bring the topic here. AG202 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The images are clearly taken by officials of the US Government so I would say yes and if a member posts it of their own volition I would say it qualifies. In fact if you look at Tim Sheehy's main picture you will see it comes from Ryan Zinke's Instagram page when they were at a campaign event together. We've also used images from freshmen before like when Cory Mills and Anna Paulina Luna posted theirs when they were first elected. There was no issue then and I don't see why there would be an issue now. Wollers14 (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Was the issue brought up then with Cory Millis and Anna Paulina Luna? If so, please point me to the relevant discussions. It's better to be safe than sorry, and I want to make sure that the policy is clear. Keep in mind as well that Abraham Hamadeh is not yet a congressperson, but a congressperson-elect, hence not yet officially a member of government. (Ryan Zinke was already a member at the time of posting) There's no harm in getting more information and/or at least waiting until the 119th Congress is sworn in. AG202 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not that I remember I just know that nobody took them down. Beth Van Duyne and Tony Gonzales also did the same in 2020 when they were first elected (I'm feeling old now) Also the account that Hamadeh used to post it was not his personal account but the account he will use when he officially gets sworn in which have the gray check marks if you use X. Wollers14 (talk) Wollers14 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Nobody taking an image down doesn't necessarily mean it's licensed correctly. As I posted above and below, this is a file uploaded to Commons and whether it's OK as licensed or should be deleted is a question for Commons. However, whether the file should be used for encyclopedic purposes on Wikipedia is a question for Wikipedia. If the local consensus is that the file is OK per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and has no WP:F9 or WP:F11 issues, then Wikipedia can probably continue using it. The file can still end up being deleted from Commons though. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

To help answer the earlier question about whether Commons had this discussion before the answer is actually yes and the image was kept. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anna_Paulina_Luna.jpg Wollers14 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That's great, but again Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anna_Paulina_Luna.jpg something to point out at Commons if the file ends up at DR or tagged for speedy deletion. Whether the file should be removed is something that can be discussed on Wikipedia (i.e. WP:FFD), but whether it should be deleted is something that should be sorted out on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: the image was kept after the congresswoman was sworn in. It's not yet clear (and consensus was not clear either) what to do before a congressperson is sworn in. I'm trying to be as specific as possible for a reason. AG202 (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

See also: Commons deletion request for MTG "official photo" AG202 (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The Tim Sheehy image is a crop of a larger image of Sheehy and Ryan Zinke that is claimed to have been taken by a member of Zinke after he officially became a congressman. That's a completely different situation than what's being discussed here. It would be certainly fine for a crop of a similar image taken by of Hamadeh and someone else that is licensed as PD-USGov (i.e. taken by an employee of the federal government as part of their official duties) to be used. Such a photo wouldn't even need to be a photo of Hamadeh and another public official; it could be Hamadeh and anyone or anything. As for the other images, files generally don't really go through a vetting process before they're uploaded; so, anyone could upload an image to Commons, claim it's licensed as such and such, and nobody would verify whether that's the case before the file is uploaded. If there's a problem with a file's licensing, it's usually something pointed out later (sometimes much later). Anyway, if the photos were taken the orientation phase for new members by an federal employee as part of their official duties, then it should be fine. I'm assuming such a thing should be fairly easy to verify if it's something that happens every election cycle. Either way, the file was uploaded to Commons and it needs to sorted out there. Whether the file should be used in the article about Hamadeh is a question for local consensus to decide perhaps, but whether it should be deleted is something to resolve on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

As an update for anyone reading, the Commons discussion has a user Wollers14 confirm with the House Creative Services via email that they took the photo. Hasn't been any update on if there should be anything done for the information that its by them or not for a template, but I think it should be fine to be used. reppop^talk 22:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added the image back to the pages. If there are any objections feel free to ping me on this discussion or the other one. Wollers14 (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

rights-managed license from Getty Images Entertainment

Hi- I want to upload an image of Alex Shapiro that's been licensed from Getty Images Entertainment and didn't know how to do so since it's not through Creative Commons or in the public domain. Photographer is Tommaso Boddi. Llk.grab.bag (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Llk.grab.bag: Sorry to not have better news but it looks like Tommaso Boddi is still alive so his work is copyright until 70 after his death. He would have to release the image under a free licence we accept for us to use such a photo. Besides which Alex Shapiro is also still alive, so a freely licenced image can be made by someone for our use. ww2censor (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Llk.grab.bag. In addition to what Ww2censor posted above, images from Getty and other commercial image rights agencies are petty much never allowed to be uploaded and used as non-free content per speedy deletion criterion F7 and item 7 of examples of unacceptable non-free image use because such a use is considered to almost always fail non-free content use criterion #2 unless the image itself (not the subject of the image) is the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources. Given that Shapiro is living, any type of non-free image of them isn't, in principle, going to be allowed since it's reasonable to expect that someone could take their photo and release it under one of the free licenses OK for Wikipedia's purposes. Such a person could even be Shapiro themselves if they were to take a selfie or owns the rights to any other images taken of them by others. The person who takes a photo is pretty much considered to be the copyright holder of the photo; so, anyone who takes a photo of Shapiro is going to be considered its copyright holder unless they've transferred copyright ownerships to Shapiro. Given what's written about Shapiro in "Alex Shapiro", they probably have a pretty good understanding of image and media copyright, and might respond favorably if you were to try to contact them as explained in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to a request for a freely licensed image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all of this guidance! I actually have purchased a license from Getty-- does that change things? If it's still not possible to use, that's fine. Llk.grab.bag (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:John Adams - A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America Vol. II. (1787.jpg

I'm not sure why File:John Adams - A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America Vol. II. (1787.jpg needs to be licensed as non-free given that it's sourced to Wikisource:Index:John Adams - A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America Vol. I. (1787).djvu and the same image already exists on Commons as File:John Adams - A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America Vol. I. (1787).djvu (page 7). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Just going to update that the file's licensing was converted to {{PD-old}} by Cryptic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

C-SPAN screenshots

I'm not sure File:Lessig in June 1997.png and File:Kahle in 2023.png are licensed correctly because C-SPAN content isn't automatically within the public domain because it's from C-SPAN and C-SPAN isn't part of the US federal government. The reason why lots of content appearing on C-SPAN is c:Template:PD-CSPAN is because the video footage taken in the chambers in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate is, I believe, from video cameras owned by the US federal government that is operated by US federal government employees that is fed to C-SPAN for broadcasting purposes. Neither of that appears to be the case here, which means the copyrights on these videos are owned either by C-SPAN or whoever took the video and aren't public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Plus the contents are recorded from a federal building to (see File:Lessig in June 1997.png) which was recorded in a public hearing about the Supreme Court's term in 1996-1997. Kahle's case is that it was done online except the host possibly stayed in a federal building conducting this interview. Fluddsskark (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Being recorded in a federal building or at a public hearing doesn't mean something is public domain unless it was recorded by a federal employee as part of their official duties, and you're going to need to establish that to be the case since you're the uploader of the file. Regular people almost certainly take photos and record videos all the time on federal property, but that doesn't mean their photos and videos are public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

C-SPAN licensing specifically states that "C-SPAN's video coverage of federal government events online for non-commercial purposes", which excludes most US Senate or US House coverage as those are specifically stated to be public domain. It doesn't include anything on the U.S. Court of Appeals or C-SPAN's Book TV series, and because there is a clear copyright notice (and its made post-1989), it should have been automatically assumed to be copyrighted. They should probably be deleted. reppop^talk 00:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

To add on to this: c:Template:PD-CSPAN states "This file is in the public domain in the United States because it is a video, video still, or audio sample from the chambers of the US House or US Senate as published by C-SPAN" and "This does not apply to congressional committee hearings or any other federal government events other than those mentioned above; such content is free only for non-commercial use and is thus not acceptable under Commons' licensing policy." reppop^talk 00:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Brush strokes in text logos

File:Katana Engine Logo.jpg and File:Pure Rxcing Logo.png seems to be simple text logos, except perhaps for the brush stroke imagery (i.e. the "K" in the first logo and the "X" in the second logo). Would this push either of these above c:COM:TOO US. If it doesn't, the logos should be OK to at least convert to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} depending on how you interpret c:COM:TOO Japan and c:COM:Lithuania. Anyone have an opinion on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

1928 image with large watermark

There is a picture I would like to add to the C&O desk article of it being used by the Van Sweringen brothers in 1928. The issue is that while the image should be out of copyright a large watermark appears on the picture by the historic society that uploaded it (the image can be found in THIS ARCHIVE by searching for item number 30107). Does this watermark make the image unusable? Can I upload it then ask for help removing the watermark? Is it not actually out of copyright because of this watermark? Any help would be appreciated. Found5dollar (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Found5dollar. If you believe the image to be out of copyright (i.e. its date of first publication (not date of creation) can clearly be established to be before January 1, 1929) it should be OK for Commons regardless of whether its watermarked as explained in meta:Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images and c:Help:Removing watermarks. I can't see the image your referring to in this case (I could be searching wrong or the item number you gave could be wrong), but generally Commons seems to be OK with removing watermarks from images which are clearly within the public domain (i.e. a clear case of copyfraud or c:COM:LL), and you can find some examples of this in c:Category:Images which had their watermark removed. If you don't want to try to remove the watermark yourself, you could upload the file as is and tag it with c:Template:Watermark which will add it to c:Category:Images with watermarks, you could then ask as c:COM:GL/P to see whether someone else might be able to remove it. If you're not sure whether the image is PD in addition to whether it's OK to upload with a watermark, you could ask about both at c:COM:VPC. It will probably be better when asking for help to provide a direct link to the image (if possible), though, because people might deciding try search for it in some archive is more trouble than it's worth. You might also try a reverse image search using something like TinEye because you might be able to find another version of the same image without a watermark being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

For info: this seems to link to the item. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Documenting Obvious Facts

How are you supposed to document an obvious fact? For instance, the town of Coraopolis is located along the Ohio River and is in Pennsylvania. How do you document this? The town is served by two newspapers and three TV stations and Interstate I-79. How do you document this? 217.180.202.124 (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Coraopolis, Pennsylvania

This isn't a question for this board - I'd refer you to WP:HELPDESK or WP:TEAHOUSE but those are currently closed temporarily. You can discuss this on Coraopolis' talk page Talk:Coraopolis, Pennsylvania or alternatively at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania and a volunteer editor there is more than likely to help find a source. Given the low amount of pageviews, though, you're better off asking at the Wikiproject page. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this a sculpture or a rocket on a stand?

File:JFKRocket.JPG On that page the uploader says they took the photo and release all rights to it. But the question now is whether this is a sculpture or just a "rocket on a stand." Would freedom of panorama apply here? I know nothing about this beyond what is on the image's page. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Or is it a logo?[2] This version File:JFKRocketa.png also exists. Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Freedom_of_panorama I'm leaning that we can't have it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

if one fails FOP, they both fail FOP. Nthep (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup. For context, it's from John F. Kennedy High School (Texas). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea when the rocket/sculpture was put up? Felix QW (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

1963 or later. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If it was erected before 1978 and does not bear a copyright notice, chances are it lost its copyright protection per c:Commons:Public art and copyright in the US. Felix QW (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If this [3] has any authority, before 1978 seems unlikely. 1988 at the earliest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If this was a working rocket put on a stand, there shouldn't be any copyright. The fact that the rocket is not used anymore should not change its copyright status. Now if it is copy, it might be different, although the difference between a real and a dummy one might be too low to cross the threshold of originality. Usually small scale models have a copyright. Yann (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

1915 image from Botswana

I'm looking to add this image to Seepapitso III: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eai7p5bXkAYKJeS?format=jpg. The photo was taken in 1915. I found it in The Birth of Botswana (1987) but can't find where they got it from or when it was first published. I also don't know the photographer. Is there any license I can upload it under? Or would it be non-free use? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Thebiguglyalien. Here are some things I think might apply to such an image.

1. If you can demonstrate the photo was published anywhere prior to January 1, 1929, it would likely be public domain under US copyright law as {{PD-US}} or {{PD-US-expired}}. The image sort of looks like a flyer or advertisement which means that it might be considered to be published if copies of it were distributed to others.
2. If you can figure out who took the photo and find out when they died, it could be {{PD-old-70}} even if first published in 1987 as long as the photo wasn't still under copyright protection as of the URAA date of the country of first publication. Per c:COM:Botswana, Botswana applies a 50 year p.m.a. which means it would need to be shown the author died before January 1, 1946.
3. If the image was first published in 1987, but the publication lacked a copyright notice and wasn't subsequently registered for copyright protection within five years of publication, the publication itself could be within the public domain per c:Template:PD-US-1978-1989 or {{PD-1996}}.
4. If you're unable find out 1, 2 or 3, most likely it's going to be treated as an unknown anonymous work which means it could be eligible for copyright protection for up to 120 years after creation or 95 years after first publication, whichever is lesser.

Of course, my assessment might be incorrect and others will probably correct me if it is. You could also ask about this at c:COM:VPC because that's probably where the image should be uploaded if it's PD.

As for whether the image can be used as non-free content, in principle, yes it could qualify as {{Non-free biog pic}} given that the subject is deceased, but meeting WP:FREER could be an issue because of when the subject died. Even if this particular image isn't PD, there might be another image capable of serving the same purpose encyclopedic purpose as this or any other non-free one that could be found and used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I would think that this image should be fine. While the US concept of "publication" for old works is a little murky, the rule of thumb generally applied on Commons is that US law considered photographs to be published when they leave the confine of a commercial photographer and are passed to the client. This implies that studio portraits such as this one can almost always be assumed to have been published shortly after creation.

For Commons, there remains Botswanan copyright to consider. Since copyright lasts until 50 years after the death of the author, Commons permits that if we do not know the death dates of the author, we assume that they will not have lived more than fifty years after the work in question, allowing for this photo to be assumed PD in Botswana since 2016.

On Commons, this can all be condensed into the single license tag {{PD-old-assumed-expired|duration=50}}, Felix QW (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I've uploaded it at Commons:File:Seepapitso Bathoen Gaseitsiwe.jpg. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"You Drive Me Crazy" album file usage

Hello. I noticed the album cover for the song "You Drive Me Crazy" was removed. I don't understand the reason for this, because the file I used (T-ara Breaking Heart Repackage.jpg) is already used on the main album's page (Absolute First Album). This is a single from the album. I didn't realize there's a problem with the file since it has been there for year. RWikiED20 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi RWikiED20. Each use of non-free content requires two things: a non-free copyright license and a non-free use rationale. In almost all cases, one copyright license is all that's needed regardless of how many times a file is being used, but a separate, specific non-free use rationale is needed for each use because not all non-free uses are equivalent. The bot that removed the file included a link to WP:NFC#Implementation in it's edit summary because it couldn't find a non-free use rationale for the file's use in article about the song; it found one for the article about the album, but not one about the song. If a rationale for this use is added to the file's page, the bot will stop removing the file. However, just adding a rationale doesn't necessarily mean everything is OK. Non-free album cover art is pretty much never allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in articles about songs just for the sake of it, but cover art specifically for the song itself can be used. So, if you can establish that the cover art you want to use is the official cover art for the song, things should be OK; if not, the file shouldn't be used in that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Ok, thank you! RWikiED20 (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

how to tag a sound file from WhatsApp

File:Gǃo'e_ǃHu.ogg was posted online by an astronomer who wanted to provide the pronunciation of a moon he had named after a Juǀʼhoan mythological figure. He contacted an anthropologist who worked with a Juǀʼhoan literacy group, and one of them pronounced the name for her over WhatsApp. It was intended for free distribution and no-one claims copyright. The Juǀʼhoan doesn't have an email acct, much less one that would correspond to the astronomer's website. Can the anthropologist who solicited the pronunciation send the astronomer permission for use, for him to forward to wikimedia? Does pronouncing a single word even amount to something that could be copyrighted? — kwami (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Bleach Box Set 1.png

File:Bleach Box Set 1.png was tagged for deletion due to WP:FREER (3D part). If I am not mistaken, the problem is because it is the photo of a box set (3D image) instead of being directly the cover of the box set (2D image), isn't it? That being the case, what is the difference between this and the images of music artists box sets such as File:Genesis83-98boxset.jpg, File:Genesis76-82boxset.jpg, File:The Beatles Box Set.jpg, File:RadioheadBoxSet.jpg, File:Peel.Slowly.and.See.albumcover.jpg, or File:5albumstudioset.jpg? Or is there another issue? Xexerss (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Revised New Jerusalem Bible image question

Hi,

I uploaded an image to serve as the image for the Revised New Jerusalem Bible article (with the understanding that the predecessor be automatically deleted after some time for being orphaned). Soon after my uploading it and adding it, it was tagged, disputing the non-free use rationale. WP:FREER was linked to and the '3D part' was mentioned in brackets as the concern.

The text mentions that 'a photograph of a copyrighted 3D work of art will also carry the copyright of the photographer in addition to the copyright of the artist that created the work', but it links to 3D computer graphics. I assume it also applies to photographs of books (which are 3D), though.

Why are New King James Version⁽¹⁾, English Standard Version⁽²⁾, New International Version⁽³⁾ and Christian Standard Bible⁽⁴⁾ allowed photographs of their bible covers (from the publishers), but in this case it is up for deletion?

1, 2, 3, 4.

Bojo Skankins (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtroom sketch art of federal court cases.

Does courtroom sketch art for federal (i.e. Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Courts, U.S. District Courts) fall underneath the public domain? While would be works published during official governmental proceedings, I am unaware whether or not someone like the Supreme Court's courtroom sketch artist would be considered to be a governmental employee and their work subsequently available for use. 24.155.0.146 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess it would entirely depend, as you yourself bring up, on whether the artist is considered to be an employee of the US federal government and were working in that capacity when creating the sketch. If they are, then I don't see any real difference between them and say another federal employee taking official photos. I found this CNN article from April 2024 about two such sketch artists and it describes them as "independent" and "freelancers" who seem to work for various other organizations/companies and not the federal government. Perhaps there are others besides the two mentioned by CNN, which means you might have to assume such sketches are copyrighted and then work backwards to figure who drew them and whether they were a federal employee when they did, or did so as some type of work for hire arrangement. Some older sketches created prior to March 1, 1989, might be public domain for other reasons though depending upon whether they had a copyright notice or their copyright formalities were taken care of, but anything after that date probably should be assumed to be copyrighted until it can be clearly shown otherwise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)