Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.21.5.205 (talk) at 16:15, 31 August 2023 (→Request to update logos' informations: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    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
    1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
    5. Hit Publish changes.
    6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
    How to ask a question
    1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
    2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
    3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
    4. 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

    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

    File:Mohun Bagan Super Giant.svg

    @JJMC89 and then @JJMC89 bot removed this file from the Mohun Bagan AC page. This is the landing page for the multi-sports club, as well as the page dedicated to its football division. Currently, the football division is known as Mohun Bagan Super Giant, where Super Giant is the brand name used by the new investor. Accordingly, the football division uses a slightly modified logo. Therefore, this logo was also included in a separate infobox. What is the issue? Mohunbagani (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @JJMC89 I am once again requesting you to respond to my question instead of deleting the logo again and again. Mohunbagani (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that this edit is valid enforcement of WP:NFCCP#10.c, and that neither the bot nor JJMC89 is to blame.
    That being said, there is a still a problem. It seems that the Article field of the {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template only accomodates a single article. What is the OP supposed to do when there are two articles where the image should be used, with a valid justification for either? Copy-paste the template twice? TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 14:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There has to be an appropriate rationale for each use. So, yes, copying the template and adjusting accordingly is fine.
    In this case I'm not seeing the justification for both logos. One justification for a logo is to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question.
    Note primary. Either the article is about the parent group, in which case the group logo is applicable; or the article is about the football team, in which case the football logo is applicable. Using both is not primary, one will be secondary and thus fails the rationale. Nthep (talk) 15:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Albi Mall Superliga logo.svg

    File:Albi Mall Superliga logo.svg, which was used in the 2022–23 Football Superleague of Kosovo, is also being used in the 2023–24 Football Superleague of Kosovo.[1] Can you arrange for the logo to be used on both items? ManiacOfSport (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, its shouldn't be used in the 2022-23 season article. I've nominated it for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "AlbiMall Superliga" [AlbiMall Superleague] (in Albanian). Football Federation of Kosovo. Retrieved 18 August 2023.

    Hello, please I need assistance.

    Each time I upload a photograph of of a living person picked from reliable news portals, admins keeps flagging it for deletion.

    I usually state that I am not the author or creator of those images and I so include the link of the news websites where I picked the images from. Yet they still always delete them for copyright issues. All the people are write about on contribute on a successful public figures whose images are freely used in the public domain

    Please what can I do? Semilore90 (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You have also asked this question on the help desk. Please only ask in one location. However, you have a misunderstanding of copyright. For something to be in the public domain, it needs to be actually released into such. Most images (and text for that matter) is owned by someone. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Semilore90 Public domain has a very specific meaning and is not the same as being available to the public. News photos of living people are almost certainly not public domain, they have a copyright holder. Unless the copyright holder has made a explicit statement to the contrary, then the protection of copyright laws applies and any usage of the image without the copyright holder's permission is a copyright violation. Nthep (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Noted
    Thanks for the clarification Semilore90 (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This image was cropped from File:P20211102AS-2249-2 (51846559463).jpg, an official White House photograph featuring both Prince Charles (as he was called then) and President Joe Biden, and whose license says among others "The photograph may not be manipulated in any way […]". IIUC, extracting less than half of the image in order to display it without the rest is "some way of manipulation" therefore forbidden by that license. — Tonymec (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That file is not protected by copyright as a US government work. The law explicitly says that. The federal agency that published it can say that they don't want you to alter it, but it lacks the force of law. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Kix

    I fixed the Kix page. 2A00:23C8:3984:6201:65D4:C916:EDCC:7670 (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Inquiry to put Insignia of Bangladesh Infantry Regiment on Bangladesh Infantry Regimental Centre

    The Logo of BIRC follows the same logo as Bangladesh Infantry regiment since it is the centre and school of the regiment itself. Other than that, it comes under Army Training and Doctrine command. 2607:FEA8:571F:B850:2C32:CDC:23E6:4A7D (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Essentially I am trying to upload a photo of the Draft:Arkville Maze, though I'm running into some difficulty in doing so. It seems that Satellite images from say google maps would not be allowed, but essentially all photos of said maze are private.

    I did however reach out to a small photo management company/estate that has the rights to a particularly high resolution aerial photo of the maze. While they are unsure about allowing the image to be rendered completely into public domain, they said that they would be apt to allow the image to be used on Wikipedia if given proper accreditation. I don't think this is permissible, but I figured I would ask here as I'm feeling somewhat out of options on how else to get a photo of this maze here. Thanks! A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    They can't allow usage in only Wikipedia, but they don't need to donate it to the public domain either. They can upload it as a CC-BY-SA license. In plain English, it means you can use it as long as you credit them. And if you publish a new version of it, you have to release it under the same terms. The easiest way is to ask them if they would be okay with that, and ask them to upload it to Wikimedia Commons themselves.
    The full guide is at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @A MINOTAUR One possibility for the copyright holder is to "donate" a low-res version of their image. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it another way, is the company willing to release a version of their image under one of the "ok" licenses here:[1]? They can do so on their own website like in this example: [2], see CC BY-SA mark under photo. Or upload it on Commons, but in that case they will probably need to verify they are who they say they are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @The Quirky Kitty Thank you both for your responses! They're very helpful. I think I'll wait (and cross my fingers) until the draft is reviewed and then pursue further. Aside from the methods suggested by you two I consider that I may be able to make a representation in a drafting software or even request an image from another Wikipedian (the gravestone of the artist who made the maze happens to have it's design carved within it, pretty cool!). Regardless, I appreciate your expertise in this matter - it's invaluable to newer editors such as myself. A MINOTAUR (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @A MINOTAUR: In case you are not aware, Wikipedia:Graphics Lab is the central place to ask requests for illustrations to be created. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tigraan Thank you! I was unaware, but that and the photography lab seem like just what I was looking for (I tried to make my own 3D render but it's hardly my specialty). A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Scan of German Church record from 1800s

    Hello, I have uploaded a scan of a birth record at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Church_Record_-_henselt_birth_date.png I believe this to be public record and am unaware of any copyright or licensing issue. However the file is marked for deletion pending the appropriate licensing tag. With what should I tag it? Any help appreciated. Peter at GclefPublishing (talk) 09:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    One might ask WHY you uploaded it? Of what use is it to Wikipedia? Theroadislong (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the birthdate of the person to which the wiki page refers. The image of the church record shows the evidence of the birthdate. The use is to make a Wiki entry correct an authentic. Can you offer any guidance as to the tags that I should use? Peter at GclefPublishing (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you directly scanned the original source (not a reprint or something like that) Template:PD-old-100 is probably applicable. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your advice, I have added the Template PD-old-100 and hope that is acceptable to the admins. Peter at GclefPublishing (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember, an original record like this which has not been published in any public compilation is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Primary sources, including birth certificates, the Social Security Death Index, and court documents, are usually not acceptable primary sources, because it is impossible for the viewer to know whether the person listed on the document is the notable subject rather than another person who happens to have the same name.--Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point, but how else can someone verify the birthdate of a notable person for Wikipedia purposes? Peter at GclefPublishing (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If no reliable sources verify the birth date, it should generally be omitted, like any other unverifiable information. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    His article in the Deutsche Biographie gives the same birth date as the Taufbuch.(digital entry, scan of original) You can use that for attribution. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm...actually the Deutsche Biographie and the Taufbuch have different dates of birth! Thanks for the links though. 24.146.50.227 (talk) 12:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both have May 9, 1814 as birth date and October 10, 1889 as date of death. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this. Barring exceptional circumstances, a birth record is a reliable source for when a given person was born. Such a use is allowed by WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
    Of course, if there is the slightest amount of doubt about the provenance or authenticity of the record, it should not be used. But that does not seem to be the case here, and the record comes with a clear bibliographic notice of which archive it comes from; I see no reason to doubt its accuracy. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Newspapers.com

    Hello. I am wondering if you're allowed to upload clippings (Images of people and stuff) found on Newspapers.com to Wikimedia. It should be fine if the newspaper is public domain ie pre 1923 at the moment I believe but I just don't know if the website hosting the papers has any rights in play. Newspapers.com let's you clip things and freely download them so I'm thinking it should be fine as long as the underlying paper is public domain. Thoughts? Thanks in advance! Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally speaking, an exact copy of a two-dimensional work, such as scanning or photographing it, does not, in the United States, give the person or organization who made the scan or photograph any copyright interest in the work, as there is not sufficient creative effort to pass the threshold of originality, with the best known case there being Bridgeman v. Corel. So if the underlying work was public domain, the scan/photograph is in the public domain as well. (It's not generally so for 3D works.) Since newspapers are 2D works, I believe you should be fine to upload such images, provided of course that the underlying newspaper is indeed in the public domain. Laws in other jurisdictions can vary on that, though, so be careful to check that if you plan to use any material from outside the US. (You may also want to check newspapers.com's terms of use; if they hold that you agree not to do that, you could still be liable under a breach of contract theory or the like, even if not liable for copyright violation.) As always, though, that's just my best guess, it is not legal advice, and it's worth exactly as much as you paid for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans. Just going to add to what Seraphimblade posted above that it's pretty much never necessary to upload scans of newspaper articles to Wikipedia, particularly when the uploaded content is primarily text, per MOS:TEXTASIMAGES even when copyright isn't a concern because the original content is within the public domain. Files of text only content can create MOS:ACCESS problems for those who might be "reading" Wikipedia using assistive devices (e.g. screen readers). In most cases, quotes from cited articles can usually be incorporated in much easier ways and simply supported by a citation to relevant source. It's also not necessary for newspaper articles cited as sources in Wikipedia articles to actually be available online per WP:PUBLISHED as long as the source itself meets Wikipedia's deinition for a reliable source and is used in proper context. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as sources, but I could see such images being useful for the article about the newspaper itself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for the help everyone. This is incredibly helpful as sometimes Newspapers.com is the only way to find a portrait of people so it’s helpful knowing I can upload these (Newspaper copyright dependant). Clyde Jimpson of the Arkansas String Beans (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    w:File:Road to Rhode Island.jpg 'No fair use rationale' tag removal

    Hello - I have uploaded the file w:File:Road to Rhode Island.jpg, but when I did so the non-free use rationale I supplied wasn't sufficient. As a result, it was given the 'No fair use rationale' tag. I have since revised the rationale - could someone please look at the rationale I have supplied and inform me if the tag should be removed or not? Thank you in advance. (Edited for clarity) Plug cryostat (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Plug cryostat, title cards like that are not normally used in episode articles. So, there is no acceptable rationale for the use of such an image, and it will and should be removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks for the explanation. Plug cryostat (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, an admin declined the deletion request on the file. I honestly don't strongly care one way or another, but to me, using an image from a wiki isn't appropriate (it would be different if the image had been officially released by the studio), and I agree with Seraphim that we don't usually use images of this nature in episode articles. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If an admin has declined the deletion request of the file, then I'm happy to add it to the article, unless it gets removed again in the future. Plug cryostat (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hackney Diamonds cover image

    Hackney Diamonds was created yesterday, following the discovery of a teaser ad in a London newspaper. The ad is widely believed to refer to a forthcoming Rolling Stones album. Regarding the artwork, the article states that it was posted on the band's social media profiles, but this is not correct. It was actually posted inadvertently on the design agency's website, and has since been taken down. So, is it OK to have this artwork in the article? Nothing official has yet been announced or released by the band or their management concerning this album. Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 09:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NFCC#4 requires that there be previous publication by or with the permission of the copyright holder. If this was an accidental release on the design agency web site, then this criterion of the non-free content criteria is not met. Use of non-free content must meet all of the criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I suspected that would be the case. I don't have a horse in this race and won't be taking any action myself, I was just drawing attention to the issue in case anyone else feels strongly enough to do something about it. Courtesy ping to User:Koavf, who created the article and uploaded the image. --Viennese Waltz 13:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you accidentally publish something, then you publish something. I don't see how being an accident changes anything. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My issue is more that we don't actually know yet if the image you uploaded is going to be the album cover or not. As I said above, nothing has been officially announced yet. --Viennese Waltz 15:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's different, then we change it. That is not a copyright issue. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it's a copyright issue. I'm saying there are no reliable sources which state that it's the cover image. The album hasn't been released yet and its existence hasn't even been officially acknowledged. --Viennese Waltz 16:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Can File:BRICS Russia 2020.svg get a public domain tag?

    I added {{Maybe free media}} to File:BRICS Russia 2020.svg a while back, and someone reverted my edit referencing a discussion about freedom of panorama in Spain. So I will ask it here: Can this file get a public domain tag? I think it should be retagged {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} since Russia's threshold of originality is fairly low according to Commons. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The link in the revert comment is apparently unrelated to this image. The logo design looks simple enough, but not sure about the authorship and copyright status of this svg version. Commons already has a jpg version, although with very dubious authorship and copyright claims by the uploader. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mexican peso

    Mexican peso is currently using 103 non-free files and is leading Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files by a lot. Is this massive use of non-free files really justified? Jonteemil (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's not. A representative example or maybe two of modern notes is fine under NFCC, but not exhaustively listing hundreds of nonfree images of every type. I'll try to clean that up when I can, as some images there are free. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I add a movie poster from IMDB to an article (still in draft stage) I am writing on a new movie?

    hello! I want to add this movie poster https://www.imdb.com/title/tt28686328/mediaviewer/rm2971556097/?ref_=tt_ov_i to a draft I am writing about the movie Man Suang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Man_Suang

    is it possible to upload the poster on the info box of this article?

    guidance is really appreciated!

    SilverQuill27 (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi SilverQuill27. Non-free content cannot be used in drafts per non-free content use criterion #9. So, if you add a non-free file to a draft, it will be removed by either a WP:BOT tasked to do such things or a human file reviewer. If the file has no other possible uses that satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, it will eventually be deleted. Since most movie posters tend to be eligible for copyright protection and need to be treated as non-free content, it's better to wait until the draft has been approved as an article before adding any non-free content to it as explained in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts. Finally, adding a movie poster or any other images to your draft has no effect on whether it will be accepted as an article; that pretty much depends upon whether the subject is deemed to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films); so, I suggest focusing on that and worrying about adding images later. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    okay I understand! Thanks for explaining! : ) SilverQuill27 (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Susan Kozma-Orlay photo

    I've recently published a short article about Susan Kozma-Orlay and am wondering if the photo used at the top of this source might be acceptable for use in the article? Based on the knowledge we have, it was likely taken in Budapest in the 1930s. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cl3phact0 Looking at the photo and the article, 1930s is my guess too. Yes, you can use it. Go to WP:FUW, choose "Upload a non-free file" > "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." > "This is a historical portrait of a person no longer alive." Consider cropping it a little. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done (If you have a minute, please verify I've actually done this correctly: File:Susan_Kozma-Orlay_(née_Zsuzsa_Kozma;_1913–2008).jpg – I've had difficulty uploading images in the past.)
    Thank you. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apart from being too big - which is easily dealt with - looks fine to me. Nthep (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cl3phact0 That looks fine to me, and bots will take care of any size/resolution problem (fair use mustn't be too big), see the edit history here [3] for an example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The photo enhances the article nicely!
    Is there any way to avoid having the "bots" add to my "Deleted edits" count? If it weren't for photo related deletions (most or all of which I believe had solid fair-use justification – though I don't know how to make this case or if it's even possible to rectify the deletions), my "Live edits" would be 100%. (I probably shouldn't care, but I do.)
    -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, but I wouldn't worry about it. I'm at 1.5% [4] myself, hopefully that's mostly from deleted articles and drafts, and not edits admins felt had to be hidden from the public. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Image taken from Instagram of subject of article

    Hi, this diff is the addition of an image from Shobna Gulati's Instagram (as in edit summary and confirmed on editor's Talk page). I think that is probably not ok, but I am not too experienced with images so thought I would check here - thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Instagram posts are copyrighted. Unless the copyright holder explicitly states that the posted image is under a specific free license, then the image is not freely licensed. I have yet to see an image from Instagram that has a free license statement on it. I'll note that the image has been uploaded to Commons, with a claim that it is own work which is not true. -- Whpq (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've removed the image and let the editor know. Tacyarg (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Image for Stephen Sondheim's Old Friends

    Hello, I uploaded an image from the following website [5]

    I am unfamiliar with the process of uploading an image from a website. The file is: File:SOF TodayTix 480x720.webp

    Would you be able to help me process this the right way just so there is no mixups, etc? Thanks. Smitty1999 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Smitty1999. Content like this posters is almost certainly protected by copyright. Such content can, in many cases, be uploaded to Wikipedia and used in articles, but it's considered to be non-free content and needs to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy each time it's used. Each non-free file requires two things as explained here: (1) a copyright license and (2) a non-free content use rationale. Most non-free files only really need one copyright license regardless of how many times the file is used, but a separate, specific non-free use rationale needs to be added to the file's page for each use. When you upload the file, you failed to provide any information about the provenance of the file or a copyright license, and this is why the file has been tagged for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F4. Assuming that you're not claiming that the file is either within the public domain or otherwise has been freely licensed, the file needs to be provided with a non-free copyright license and a non-free use rationale to avoid the file being speedily deleted. Provinding these things don't necessarily make the file's non-free policy-compliant and the use can still be challenged, but it provides enough information to avoid speedy deletion per criteria F4 and F6. Since this file appears to be poster art for a play, I suggest using Template:Non-free use rationale poster for the non-free content use rationale and Template:Non-free poster for the copyright license. Go to the file's page and click "Edit" at the top. Remove the syntax for the two deletion related templates and replace them with the syntax for the non-free content use rationale and the non-free copyright license. Once you've done this, makes sure to fill in the parameters of the non-free content use rationale template per the instructions given on the template's documentation page. Some of the paramters might not be applicable or otherwise optional and you can fill the latter in if you know that information, but you should make sure to fill in the ones for |article=, |source= and |use=. When you're done, click "Show preview" to check to make sure everything looks OK. If it does, make sure to add an edit summary briefly explaining what you did and then click "Publish changes". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Marchjuly Thank you for this information. I just added the templates you provided. Would you be able to look at the link and see if I did the templates correctly. I appreciate your help. Smitty1999 (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello again @Marchjuly! I was able to add the templates you mentioned so everything should be ok now. I again do apologize for not providing that information. All should be good now. Thank you again for your help and I will remember to do this in the future. Smitty1999 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is File:Clara MacBeth undated photo.jpg in the public domain?

    File:Clara MacBeth undated photo.jpg currently is listed as a non-free fair use image. Could it be in the public domain under {{PD-US-no notice}}? The image is listed here on the 26 February 1970 edition of the New York Daily News without a copyright notice for the image. But the front page of the 26 February 1970 edition of the New York Daily News has a copyright notice ("Copr. 1970 News Syndicate Co. Inc."). Does that mean the image is copyrighted based on the copyright notice on the front page of the newspaper? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Cunard. Generally, only advertisments appearing in print publications at that time were required to have separate copyright notices; so, photos appearing in articles or in other parts of the publication were (I'm pretty sure) covered by the copyright notice for the publication itself, unless they were otherwise attributed. Some photos used by papers back then and even still today aren't the original work of the paper itself, but came from other sources. Lots of wire services provide not only text content but also images; so, it would be important to figure out the provenance of that photo and when perhaps it was first published. The safe thing to do would be to leave it as non-free, but you can try asking about this at c:COM:VPC since that's where the photo will eventually end up if it is either {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-not renewed}}, which are two licenses often applied to such photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the detailed response, Marchjuly (talk · contribs)! This is very useful to know. I've also asked at c:COM:VPC as you suggested. Cunard (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Magazine covers

    Where can I find guidance on the use of magazine covers as a subject identification reference for a biographical article? There are no portraits of the subject on commons, but he is featured on a few magazine covers. The question is whether this is a fair-use case for an infobox photo. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Cl3phact0: The answer depends on when and where it was published. Details of who the photographer was and whether they are alive or dead, and if so when, are also useful. Can you be more specific? Provide a link so it can be reviewed. ww2censor (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ww2censor: It is a 2017 cover of the Sydney Morning Herald / Good Weekend Magazine supplement. I'm not able to ascertain who the photographer is from the image the publication posted here, nor do I have access to a hard copy of the magazine itself. I would like to include a single instance of the cover (at whatever resolution is deemed acceptable) in the infobox of the article of about David Caon. Having seen other BLP articles where this technique is used, it seemed possible that it might be a simple way to add an identifying image of the subject. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cl3phact0: Unfortunately not as simple as you suggest. Our strict non-free policy does not allow images of living people because it is possible for a new image to be created and released under a free licence. For deceased people, though not recently dead, a non-free image is usually allowed and that may be what you have seen. ww2censor (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks ww2censor, nothing simple about any of this. Didn't mean to imply otherwise! I have read and re-read the policy, and still find myself unsure of how to interpret certain aspects (hence my caution and presence here on this thread). Is the hypothetical "or could be created" the clause that proscribes an image of a living person? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cl3phact0 Basically yes. Unless you can establish that it's impossible (or as close as) for somebody to create a free image of a living person then WP:NFCC#1 says no to using a non-free image. A recent example is Lucy Letby where a non-free image of her is justified on the basis tha her whole life term of imprisonment makes it impossible to create a free image of her. Nthep (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Cl3phact0. Just going to add what Nthep and Ww2censor posted above and also point out that the way you seem to be looking to use one of these magazine covers is also generally not allowed per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI even in cases where the person appearing on the cover is deceased. In some cases where the magazine cover itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary, it can be OK to use a non-free image of it in the body of an article in support of content about the cover, but generally such images shouldn't be used in the main infobox for primary identification purposes. Finally, the free equivalent images referred to when discussing WP:NFCC#1 and WP:FREER doesn't necessarily mean a free version of the same non-free image needs to be found; it just means a freely licensed image capable of serving essentially the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one either already exists or there's a reasonable expectation of such an image being created. Moreover, created doesn't only mean that a new photo needs to be taken; it also can mean that an already existing image is relicensed by its copyright holder to make it OK for Wikipedia. For reference, some users have had success in procuring free image using WP:PERMISSION by making contact with copyright holders of existing images and asking them to relicense them in a way that makes them OK to use on Wikipedia. Given the fact that Canon seems to be willing to release images of his work under acceptable licenses per File:Noritake for Qantas Tableware by David Caon.jpg, he may be quite happy to simply take a selfie and upload it to Commons under an acceptable free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks Marchjuly, Nthep, and ww2censor. Rueing the use of the word "simple"...
    Presumably someone has contacted the publisher to request such rights for examples such as: c:File:Ms. magazine Cover - Summer 2014.jpg; c:File:April 2013 NZ North&South magazine cover.jpg; c:File:Pop Magazine Issue 14 Cover.jpg; or c:File:Fashion Street Magazine Covers.jpg (but not: c:File:Metro no. 195 cover.jpg)? I may try at some point, but had hoped for a simpler solution. I suppose that's why I had hoped that a direct upload (to WP rather than via Commons) of a magazine cover itself (a specific instance of a thing as much as a photograph of the person pictured) with only one specific use (infobox) might be a simple workaround route. Alas.
    [NB: I've shied away from trying the direct contact approach in the past, and when I did attempt this, it went nowhere (although I learned a few interesting things and achieved some successful outcomes elsewhere).]
    Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated the Metro for deletion. On the other's, sometimes the publisher makes contact first because they want WP to use the whatever, the Pop Magazine may be one of those. And Ms. apparently has some sort of collaboration with Commons, I have no idea how that works, but good job:[6]
    I have on occasion asked COI-people who turned up on WP themselves to provide a picture, with some success. My favorite was a lady who hunted down the 1990 photographer of a pic of her husband and made him release it on Commons. Great picture, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: What was the picture, by the way? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Skeeter Reece carrying Albert Alter juggling while on unicycle.jpg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was well worth the effort. Great photo! -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The other magazine covers mentioned above seem to all be files uploaded to Commons; so, they are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Whether they are OK for Commons is a question to be decided over at Commons. Whether they are encyclopedically appropriate for the infoboxes of articles is something that should probably be resolved through article talk page discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks and noted that Commons and Wikipedia have different policy standards (with those on Commons seemingly stricter in this case). The examples from Commons were only used to help gain clarity as to whether a magazine cover can be thought of an instance of a unique object (a thing), regardless of what it depicts. Looking at a similar examples here on enwiki such as: w:File:Allure magazine 30th anniversary issue March 2021.png; w:File:Robb Report 40th anniversary edition October 2016.png; w:File:Architecture Australia cover.jpg; w:File:Architectural digest 100th anniversary January 2020 issue.png; or w:File:Metropolis (architecture magazine) December 2011 cover.jpg still leaves me baffled by the complexity of this subject.
    In the case of the initial question about using a SMH magazine cover as a workaround to help identify an individual in BLP infobox, my understanding is that this usage would not be allowed here under any circumstances. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: This is perhaps also relevant: w:Category:Fair use magazine covers -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure this helps, per my understanding, a "fair use" magazine cover (or book cover, movie poster, picture of dead or fictional person) is generally only acceptable on WP as a leadimage in a WP-article about that subject. Add to this that if a "free" version is available, fair use is no longer allowed.
    Commons' policy is "never fair use" and Wikipedia's is "almost never fair use." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you. That helps clarify how the "fair-use" policy is currently understood and applied. Less so the why of it (in this limited context), but that's probably more a function of my mental elasticity (or lack thereof) than the clarity of your explanation (and the other helpful responses above). I thought it was worth asking, but I don't want to use-up any more of anyone's time on this one. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure about photo of a Vanity Fair magazine page from 1990

    File:Example.jpg Hi, I'm a new Wiki page creator, bound to make embarrassing mistakes. I took a photo of a Vanity Fair magazine page from 1990, tried to credit all participants -- can I add it to a page about the theater company depicted in the magazine photo? Cleverdisguise (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    1990? Heck, no. The copyright in that photo will belong to the photographer for another 70 years or so. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    got it, am reaching out to the photog. thanks. 64.38.191.198 (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Cleverdisguise. In principle, the person taking a 100% original photo is generally considered to be the sole copyright holder of the photo; so, if you went outside and took a photo of the sky, you would own the copyright of the photo and could do whatever you want with it since the sky isn't eligible for copyright protection. Things, however, get much more complicated when photographing someone else's copyrighted work. In such cases, there are often two copyrights involved (one for the photo and one for the photographed work), which limits a photographer's ability to reuse their photo. Photos considered to be slavish (i.e. non-creative or mechanical) reproductions of some other person's work are not considered creative enough to generate a new copyright for the photo as explained here; so, the only thing that matters is the copyright of the photographed work. So, if the magazine cover is either too old or otherwise too simple to have ever been eligible or to be still eligible for copyright protection, it can be photographed without worrying about infringing on anyone's copyright. If, on the other hand, the magazine cover is protected by copyright, you would still need to have the WP:CONSENT of the magazine cover's copyright holder to use their work in order for it to be OK to upload and use on Wikipedia. Given that your asking about a magazine cover from 1990, it's definitely not old enough to be no longer eligible for copyright protection, and it's most likely also too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection unless it's pretty much nothing more that a page with some simple shapes or a few words on it. Now, if the photo didn't originate with Vanity Fair but was provided to the magazine by some other party (i.e. the theatre company itself), then Vanity Fair wouldn't be the copyright holder and you would need to figure out who took the photo to determine whose consent is going to be needed.
    Finally, this is not really related to media copyright stuff, but I've draftified the article you created about Pink Theater because it's clearly not ready for the WP:MAINSPACE. You can now find it a Draft:Pink Theater, where you can continue working on it. I suggest you take a look at Help:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for some general ideas on how to improve your draft. I also suggest that you submit to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review when you think the draft is ready, and don't move it to the mainspace again yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, got it, thanks! I'll contact the photographer, and figure out how to un-draftify my draft! Little by little . . . Thanks. 64.38.191.198 (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Madeleine Riffaud.jpg

    Does File:Madeleine Riffaud.jpg need be to licensed as non-free? If it does then it would seem to have WP:FREER issues. Assuming that the country of first publication is France, then maybe it's already within the public domain per c:COM:FRANCE, but wartime photos differently from other photos per c:COM:France#Wartime copyright extensions. France does have 70 years p.m.a for photos taken by known authors and 70 year after first publication term for anonymous works, but there's very little about the provenance of the photo in the file's description. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If I understand correctly, the extension means it might get about 79 years of protection, meaning it would have to be made before 1943. And since it was supposedly taken during World War II, it may well have been 1943 or later. I believe the US would also recognize the copyright (though the rules for this are head-spinning) for 95 years after publication (potentially until 2041). I would play it safe and keep it non-free. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Statue of Liberty imagery

    Is the Statue of Liberty imagery in File:Lincoln Chafee 2020 presidential campaign logo.webp that's being used to represent the letter "i" be something still eligible for copyright protection? If it is, I'm not sure the campaign logo's use in Lincoln Chafee#2020 presidential campaign meets the WP:NFCCP. The file was initially used in Lincoln Chafee 2020 presidential campaign, but was just moved to the Chafee article as part of what looks like a bold merge. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Most likely. There's a non-trivial degree of creativity that goes into drawing a sculpture of a person. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo of academic degree

    Would the photograph of Adele Racheli's 1920 engineering degree on this site pass fair-use (of free-use) criteria? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Cl3phact0. Why would readers need to see a photo of her degree? Do you think they have a hard time understanding textual content about her educational background and degree without actually seeing a photo of it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Touché. That's another question and a fair one at that. As a first instance (in Italy) of a woman receiving such a degree, I thought it might have greater significance than in our times. Whether that justifies using the image, I don't know. Please advise.
    For information and understanding, my initial question was about the admissibility of the image itself: is it, or, for that matter, are any of the photographs of the subject herself (for subject identification purposes) fair-use (either here or on Commons)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For future reference, Commons doesn't allow fair use. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's public domain in the US since it's over 95 years old. So you can freely upload it to Wikipedia. However, crop the frame out first:
    • The frame has decorative elements and could be newer
    • Copyright protection could apply to that part of the photo. (When you're photographing a 3-D object, it's arguably creative. But if you're photographing a 2-D object, no new copyright is created.)
    Edit: and to upload it to Commons, the copyright in Italy needs to have expired too.
    I'm sorry this is so complicated. Unfortunately, copyright isn't simple.
    The Quirky Kitty (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to update logos' informations

    Hi, I would like to request you how could I add some non-free logos. Because if you check out this page on Internet Archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20190531154547/http://www.sonychannelasia.com/) you'll see the logo File:Sony Channel logo.png was the last logo of Sony Channel (Southeast Asian TV channel) and maybe other Sony Channel feeds. If I can't do nothing about it, could you update this information?79.21.5.205 (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I fixed it. A bot removed it because there was no fair use rationale on the image page. I added it and restored the logo. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Sony Channel (Russia) (https://web.archive.org/web/20171016174233/https://www.sonychannel.ru/) and Sony Channel (German TV channel) (https://web.archive.org/web/20161220174440/http://www.sonychannel.de/) used this logo. Can you fix it? 79.21.5.205 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=1173152444"