Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/November

Hospital teen image

Please review this file. It is not replaceable with a free image, any replacement would be under similar restrictions. It is used to support encyclopedic discussion of the article. The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): Discussion of life-threatening lung illness and subsequent handwritten sign; an out-of-copyright image would not work. Per WP:NFCC: #1 it is not replaceable by others images, and #8 it serves to enhance our readers understanding of the article topic. See discussion on talk page. According to the edit summary the image is replaceable. I can't find a replacement. QuackGuru (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

It is replaceable with prose. The only information it conveys is that the individual was sick, was hospitalized, and wishes to start an anti-vaping campaign. That does not require any image to convey; I just did it in a sentence. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The image meets WP:NFCCP and a valid rationale has been given. All 10 specifications under WP:NFCCP have been met. An image that lacks a free content license may be used on the English Wikipedia. It increases our understanding of the article topic. Therefore, it is permissible to use. QuackGuru (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the two-part NFCC#8. Its inclusion may help improve understanding, but its omission does not harm the understanding. It is a photo to pled to...compassion? concern? of others that vape, which we do not include for NFCC along with other numerous reasons. --Masem (t) 15:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Its omission harms the understanding of the topic article. Without an image it harms the understanding of a hospital patient hooked up to a like-supporting machine due to vaping. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

See this file. It says "Discussion of life-threating lung illness of a hospitalized patient due to vaping and subsequent handwritten sign; an out-of-copyright image would not work" It is not replaceable by others images, and it significantly enhances our readers understanding of the article topic. It complies with WP:NFCCP. Prose alone make the topic not easy to understand, especially for those who are not ER doctors or who have not seen a hospital penitent hooked up to a machine. A valid rationale for using the image has been provided. An image of a hospitalized patient who is hooked up to a life-supporting machine significantly increases our understanding of the article topic. Is there any argument that indicates it does not comply with WP:NFCCP? QuackGuru (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" - my emphasis. While no free images may be located currently what prevents the creation of one e.g. by a relative on one of the patients taking an image and releasing it under a free licence? Nthep (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It's fully replaceable, in both the idea of prose, and that it is clearly possible that a similar photo could be taken with a free license given the number of patients hospitalized by vaping. It is not like she was a 1-in-a-billion case. There's thousands of hospitalized vaping patients, a photo of them hooked up to such machines taking freely would be just as effective. --Masem (t) 15:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:NFCCP does not indicate it is acceptable to replace an image with prose. Since it greatly increases our understanding of the article topic it meets the burden of non-free content criteria. Without an image, it harms the understanding of a hospitalized vaping patient.

The inclusion criteria is not if someone in the future might release an image under a free license. It can't be created under a free license at the moment. I have searched for free similar images. Another image of one of the hospitalized patients due to vaping is not available under a free license. Any replacement would be under similar restrictions. Therefore, it passes Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ QuackGuru's interpretation of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#1--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

A free equivalent is not limited to free images; it can also be text as explained in WP:FREER and that seems to work just as well in this case. I don't think a non-free image of a patient hooked up to a hospital machine is needed for most reader's to understand that patients in hospitals are sometimes hooked up to "machines" as part of their treatment. Sure, there might be some person out there who has never seen such a thing on TV or in a movie, who may not be able to understand such a thing, but I think most reader's will be able to understand it which makes it harder to justify the file just on that fact alone. Moreover, non-free images are not used by default just because a free equivalent image doesn't currently exist; there needs to be a reasonable expectation that a free equivalent image can pretty much never be created. As others have pointed out above, it seems possible for another image of even a different patient to be taken and released under a free license by the copyright holder. The only way this file might be possibly OK per NFCC#1 and NFCC#8, in my opinion, would be if the photo itself (not the patient in the photo) was specifically the subject of sourced critical commentary found in reliable sources; in that case, content specific to this image should be added to the article and supported by citations to such sources. For example, if this photo has gone viral and has started being used in public-awareness campaigns, etc. about the risks associated with vaping, then maybe it's impact would have spread beyond that particular article or that particular moment and it could be used.

Anyway, if you disagree with the arguments presented here, you can nominate the file for discussion at WP:FFD and see if a consensus can be established in favor of the file's non-free use. The file can always be restored if it's deleted per WP:F5 if there's a consensus that it's OK to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 because the reader's understand is not harmed by replacing the image by prose as previously noted. This sort of justification has been tried before. ww2censor (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, pretty much an open-and-shut case. Fails both NFCC#8 and #1. About "significance": nothing in the image goes beyond the factual information that "somebody got ill, they were in hospital, while in hospital they decided they wanted to start a campaign". Or rather, yes, of course there is something that goes beyond that factual information: it's the emotional appeal of seeing the young distressed women's face in that situation. But emotional appeal is not something that's our business conveying. Emotional appeal is for POV-pushers. Things that constitute "significance" in the sense of NFCC#8 need to be issues of legitimate, factual encyclopedic content. Then, about "replaceability": it is quite obviously and trivially replaceable. This is a living individual. If that person really wants to start a campaign, nothing stops her of creating and releasing other photos of herself presenting her plea. Or indeed, releasing this photo under a free license. Has anybody even asked her if she'd be willing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone could ask her on Instagram or Facebook to upload the same photo to Wikimedia Commons[1][2] under a compatible license. QuackGuru (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If she took the photo as a "selfie", yes. Otherwise, it would need to be the photographer who does so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Another fallacy in above to point out is : "The inclusion criteria is not if someone in the future might release an image under a free license." The potential of a future free image is always taken into account, though we do also consider timeliness. For example, if a new skyscraper is announced, its clearly notable from that, but construction has only broken ground and construction will take 2-3 years, we would reasonably allow an architect's non-free drawing to stand in for those few years as the identifying image on the article, but once that building is completed, then that non-free rational disappears, since a free image could be hand. In contrast, we would NOT allow a non-free image on a notable upcoming product that is six-or-so months out from release, as we know that's a more finite time scale and we know that a free image can be made when the product hits the market. --Masem (t) 19:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Starting a vaping campaign with her cousin

The photo has since gone viral and she said she will be launching a campaign with her cousin to fund research for more information about vaping. It's impact has spread or will spread beyond that particular moment in the hospital, and therefore it could be used. QuackGuru (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It's stil failing NFCC#8 as there is no explanation of what the contextual significance of this image is. I note that the Journal Post article you referenced uses several images of her from her Instagram feed, so where is the critical commentary about this one image that gives the significance of the image in the hospital bed. Even if you can establish that contextual significance there is still the question of NFCC#1 and why a freely licenced image cannot be obtained. Nthep (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The critical commentary about the post is discussed in the Daily Mail. I have not added content from the Daily Mail to the article. Only a handful of hospitalized vaping patients are speaking out during the outbreak. Only a handful of hospitalized vaping patient photos are being posted and discussed online. It is going to be difficult to find a replacement. News outlets are allowed to use the photo, but for a Wikipedia article it is not allowed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

DM is not a reliable source. --Masem (t) 19:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is another news outlet using multiple images from her Instagram account so again no commentary on this specific image. Her agreement with newspapers to allow use of her Instagram images in not our concern, she may have a commercial agreement with them or they maybe committing copyright theft - regardless, Wikipedia policy about non-free use is clear. It's annoying, I know, there are many non-free images I would like to use on articles but can't because I cannot make out the rationale to do so. Nthep (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Screenshot of software

I'd like to upload a screenshot of a recent (non-free) software synthesizer, as the one on the current software synthesizer article is of a pretty ugly, old (10+ years) app - not a great example. What are the copyright restrictions around screenshots of software? Popcornduff (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

mw:Commons:Screenshots#Software states that screenshots of computer software cannot be uploaded to Commons unless with a Free Software License (e.g., MIT, GNU GPL). Do you have a software synthesizer that is released recently and is open source? If so, feel free to upload a screenshot. 112.202.18.243 (talk) 09:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

To be more specific, if the program itself was notable and had a standalone article, we'd allow a non-free screenshot of it to show its interface (if the interface was discussed). However, to discuss a general software concept like a software synthesizer, as long as there are options for free images from open-source programs we need to use those. --Masem (t) 15:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I suspected as much. Thanks for the replies. Popcornduff (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

File:MacLean of Duart, Modern.jpg

I'm pretty sure that a cloth pattern like tartan probably doesn't need to be licensed as non-free unless the only reason for doing so is because of the photo. If that's the case, then this would fail WP:FREER since anyone could take a similar photo and release it under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you are correct, that the pattern is not subject to copyright, but the photo is. So non-free use is unjustified. We can leave this deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett:. Another image has been uploaded as File:MacLean of Duart, Modern.jpg, but I cannot tell whether it's same as the one which was deleted or a different file just under the same name. Can you check on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The new upload is different, with a claim that the uploader took the photo, so this one looks OK. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Tartan patterns are very much the subject of copyright. Some are not as old as they seem and are still subject to copyright in the US and UK. see this Tartan copyright lawsuit as an example - X201 (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that information X201. In that case, we would need to know the origin of the pattern to determine whether it's copyrightable. If it is then a photo of it could be freely licensed, but the pattern itself would need to be treated as non-free content. Perhaps the uploader MHist01 can clarify this since they say the photo is from their kit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That is correct, I took the picture of my own kilt. They are especially made for each person, so I'm pretty sure that it isn't copyrighted MHist01 (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Just the opposite. If it is made for each person, then it is a new design and the designer will hold the copyright. - X201 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@MHist01: In addition to copyright matter, if the design is different for each member, then using one in the main infobox to represent the entire group seems a bit misleading. It would be better to use the band's logo (if it has one) than a picture of one member's kit. It also seems from you post like you're a member of the band. Is that correct? If you are, then you need to follow WP:COI as I explained on your user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understood that I said, that is my personal kilt (the one I wear), but we all have the same design. This is because each one is made especially for each person, yet they are all the same design. MHist01 (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You wrote especially made for each person which could mean individually designed, individually fitted or both. Since it seems you meant individually sized, then the design itself may still be still protected by copyright as explained above by X201 and the individual sizing is irrelevant. Do you know who created the original design and how long ago it was created?

Also, since you do seem to be member of the band, you almost certainly are going to be considered to have a WP:COI with respect to anything written about it. You should follow the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies for COI editing and refrain from editing the article except as explained in WP:COIADVICE. You particularly should refrain from adding things like this, which is an unsourced claim and definitely not a WP:MINOR edit. In cases like this, COI editors are generally advised to submit a draft to WP:AFC for review instead of creating the article's directly themselves. Basically, your only citing the band's Facebook page and its website as sources; there are a few other trivial mentions (like listed in WP:NORG#Examples of trivial coverage), but the lack of secondary, reliable significant coverage available about the band is a concern per WP:NBAND and WP:NORG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Graeme Bartlett and X201: The file has been moved to Commons by a bot; so, I guess any addition concerns about its licensing will need to be discussed there. The uploader, however, has been indefinitely blocked per WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK; so, there's unlikely going to be any further clarification coming from them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Donald O'Toole.jpg

Based upon the description of this file, it doesn't seem to be licensed correctly. Perhaps it can be {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, but the CC license seems to be assuming that uploader is the original creator/copyright holder of the image, which seems unlikely if this is a scan per c:COM:2D copying. Another problem is that there's no way to verify the sourcing of the photo; it might've used on a brochure, but that still might not be the original source of the photo. Any suggestions on what (if anything) should be done here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I suppose we should ask user:Commadore4 what brochure this is from, particularly whether the date can be determined, and which country it is from. The text on the file page suggests PD-US-no notice applies, but it could be PD pre 1923 depending on when it was published. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Graeme Bartlett. I thought about asking the uploader as well, but they haven't edited since 2011 so I'm not sure they would respond. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It's possible that the brochure is the one mentioned in https://explore.chicagocollections.org/marcxml/chicagohistory/30/nc5tk7p/. If anyone's near the Chicago History Museum Research Center, they could check. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Pictures Questions

Hi there. I have a couple of questions - no doubt the answers are out there but I'd rather play safe when it comes to copyright issues, and ask here.

• 1. I have taken some photos of the book Practical Billiards (1904) by Charles Dawson (billiards player) (1866-1921). Can I upload and use a) my pictures of the cover of the book (e.g. on Dawson's article page)?; b) my pictures of photos of players from within the book? (There are photos of Dawson and other players published in the book - can I upload and use the pictures I've taken of these photos on relevant player biography article pages?)
• 2. There are some pictures of Ruth McGinnis from about 1921 here. Can I use these as out of copyright, or must I seek permission to use them? They are credited as "Mike Shamos of the Billiard Archive" but that must be the provider of the copies rather than the original publisher. I assume that any pictures from 1924 onwards would need permission to be granted.

Let me know if any further details are needed. If any of these are acceptable for use, then advice about where to upload (Commons or Wikipedia), attributions, credits and appropriate licenses would be very welcome. Thank you! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Vilkyciu Trasa image

Thank you for leaving message on my talk page. Could you please specify where to add the information about image's source - I've added it through a wizard, and now I can't see how to add the sourcing information. Appreciate your help. Wolfmartyn (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Wolfmartyn: Images are are required to have basically two things: a file copyright license and information about their origin (i.e. their source). If you didn't create this file itself, then it had to come from somewhere. You can help clarify this by providing information about who created it, when it was created and where you found it, etc. You can add this information to the file's page directly as text or as part of template like Template:Information. If you did create this file yourself, then you can add that information to the file's page as well. Be careful with the latter though in that simply copying someone else's work (e.g. downloading it from online or scanning it from something) doesn't not make it your own work; it's possible that you might have created a derivative work, but it's not going to be 100% your own work unless you are the original creator of everything from start to finish. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:, I've added more information about the File:Vilkyciu trasa.jpg, could you please let me know if it makes sense and whether it is sufficient. I've another relevant question - if I needed to obtain a permission, where and how I would record the permission (i.e. the email)? Wolfmartyn (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I responded to this on your user talk page since you asked the same question there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding pictures of Charles Umlauf's works

Hello, I wanted to upload some pictures of Charles Umlauf's sculptures to his artist page. Some of his more famous (Spirit of Flight, Mother and Child, Father and Son, Torchbearers) and then some of his less well known or not publicly displayed ones. I have pictures that were taken by a photographer hired at one time by the UMLAUF museum and they have copyright over it. I spoke with the curator who said it is ok to use the pics on this page. I couldn't find anything on FAQ pages about what to do w pics that are copyrighted/owned by people editing/ they said it is ok? Can I still upload them? If the Museum owns the pics that should make it ok to use them on Umlauf's page, or would it change if I used it on the Museum page instead? Thank you for the help! I have never uploaded a picture before, so I appreciate the responses. --Kiranina (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Kiranina: There are already four images, though I am not sure even those are correctly licensed, in Charles Umlauf's article who died in 1994. So any works between 1978 and then are copyright until 70 years after his death. Pre-1978 depends on whether there was a copyright notice on the sculptures. Such photos are derivative works and normally require permission from both the artist or his heirs AND the photographer. Besides that issue, any photographs you get from the museum must be freely licensed by the copyright holder, who may not even be the museum but the photographer who took the photos. Additionally, there is likely to be freedom of panorama issues as such sculptures may not be free at this time depending on several factors, such as whether the sculpture has a copyright notice, as mentioned above, and what the year of "publication" was. We cannot use images on the say so that they may be used on a wikipedia page, they must be released under a free license. For further research, several of his works are registered in the Smithsonian Art Catalog. ww2censor (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

File:1910 photo of German physicist Max Bernhard Weinstein.jpg

If this photo was taken in 1910 and was first published in 1910, then it seems OK to convert to {{PD-US}}, {{PD-old-100}} or maybe even c:Template:PD-Germany-§134-KUG, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Virginia Cavaliers logo usage

Hello. Can File:Virginia Cavaliers sabre.svg be used on Virginia Cavaliers football page? I have a user saying it can't be used, but per my understanding it is the modern logo for Virginia Cavaliers sports and does not conflict with copyright law per Wiki's non-free content criteria, logo guidelines, and fair use doctrine under U.S. Copyright law. I don't want to question the other user's judgment, but I don't see the issue with using the logo. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolanwebb (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Omnibus is correct. No it can't, per WP:NFC#UUI#17. The football team is a child entity of Virginia Cavaliers. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. So, for the purposes of my understanding, File:Virginia Cavaliers sabre.svg could not be used on Virginia Cavaliers football because it lacks specificity to the page and is rather properly used solely for a parent page. Does this then mean that the sabre logo could be used on Virginia-Virginia Tech rivalry because it not a child page of Virginia Cavaliers, but rather a page about Virginia Cavaliers? Whereas it could not be used for Virginia-Virginia Tech football rivalry because it then would be representing the child entity, and thus be improper. Does that follow?
Thanks. Nolanwebb (T • C) 10:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It can't be used for either rivalry article. Those articles are about the rivalries, not the athletics teams. See WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#CS. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nolanwebb. Some sports rivalries have been going on for so long that they sometimes receive significant coverage for the fact that they are rivalries and even have their own particular branding. In such cases, it would be OK to use the logo of that particular event (if one exists) (e.g. Iron Bowl) and even possible to use team logos as long as they're not licensed as non-free (e.g. wordmark logos); however, rivalry articles, individual season articles, and individual team articles are for the most part going to be considered to be "child entries" when it comes to non-free use and the primary logos of a school's athletic teams is generally not going to be allowed to be used in such articles. There may be exceptions such as commemorative or anniversary logos used for a specific season or occurrence of an event that might be able to be justified or cases when a new logo is introduced as part of a school's change in branding for a particular season or occurrence, but generally Wikipedia encourages us to try and minimize non-free use as much as possible and use alternative (i.e. free equivalent) ways of presenting the same encyclopedic information. In this sense, Wikipedia policy is more restrictive that what you might be used to seeing on other websites, etc., but that is by design. If you can find a non-free logo specific to the football team, then perhaps it can be used for the main team article; however, even such a logo wouldn't be considered to be OK for individual season articles or rivalry articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Billie Jean 2008.jpeg

I was planning to re-categorize the image (File:Billie Jean 2008.jpeg) as ineligible for copyright and then to transfer it to Commons. However, I read this book saying a signature with more elaborate appearance and creativity would be copyrightable in the US. MJ's other signature, File:Michael Jackson signature.svg, looks harder to read, decipher, and identify, yet it's tagged as PD. If FFD is unnecessary, then what else can I do about it? --George Ho (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the clean-up in the new logo vs MJ's own signature is enough to say that there was effort made for using the signature as branding, and thus should not be considered a free work in the Billie Jean cover. Commons says this: If the signature is sufficiently complex to be considered a protectable artistic work in the US (akin to a non-trivial drawing), it cannot be hosted on Commons regardless of the position under local law unless it has been licensed under a compatible license or would have fallen into the public domain under some other rule (e.g. expiration of copyright). c:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag and that feels like the case here. --Masem (t) 15:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (WP:FUC)

I have copied a photograph from the web. https://thumbnail.myheritageimages.com/288/193/288193/500/500004_321803m8c23zy5h0g1ai82_C_398x570.jpg It derives from the web site https://www.myheritage.com/search-records?action=person&siteId=288193&indId=1000037&origin=profile I would like to include it as a thumbnail in an AfC (currently a draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:William_Oliver_(artist,_born_1823) if it is accepted.. The subject of the photo died in 1901. Apparently Wikimedia Commons allows upload of very old images where the date of publication and the author are unknown, but in order to meet this the image must be at least 120 years old. Since the image was created 1901 or earlier, this image falls short of that by two years. Rather than waiting 2 years I wondered whether the photo could be used by complying with the 10 criteria in WK:FUC. Would the proposed use comply with all these? Could you please put a copy of any reply on my talk page BFP1 (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)BFP1

Hi BFP1. Non-free content cannot be used in drafts per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts; so, if you want to upload the file as non-free content, you should wait until after the draft has been approved as an article. If you try use it in a draft or any other pages which are not articles if will be removed; moreover, if the file isn't being used in at least one article as required by WP:NFCC#7, it will be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking ahead in preparation (if I am lucky enough to get the article accepted). WP:NFC 7.1.3 example 10 looks relevant to my situation. Please send to my talk page BFP1 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)BFP1

@BFP1: assuming you've made efforts to find if there are any out of copyright images of Oliver and aren't just relying on the first image you've found then yes WP:NFCI exception 10 is highly likely to be applicable. Nthep (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Nthep. I have seen no other images of the person. I will patiently wait and hope for acceptance. For possible future use, are there any templates for providing the required information in applying for fair use? BFP1 (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)BFP1

{{Non-free use rationale}} can be used to fill in all the NFC blanks, you can prep this elsewhere in your user space and then when the draft converts to main space you can reuse it - though if you use the Upload Wizard, it will also ask you similar questions to fill it out. --Masem (t) 15:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. For this image {{Non-free use rationale biog}} is probably the one you want to use together with {{Non-free biog-pic}}. Nthep (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Masem & Nthep BFP1 (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC) BJP1

Just a little question

Hi friends, well, I'm about to create an article about the (so-called by FIFA) "most corrupt referee the game has ever seen", and I would like to know two things, if there are laws of copyright in Niger and if so, if a screenshot of TV would qualify for fair use even with him alive. Thank you. --CoryGlee (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@CoryGlee:, the basic copyright rules for Niger is lifetime +50 years pma of the author (c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Niger) and a screenshot of him is unlikely to meet the non-free use criteria unless you can establish that WP:NFCC#1 cannot be met - the current lack/unavailability of a free photo does not meet this criteria. Nthep (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Nthep, oh, what a disappointment, but well, thank you very much for your clarification. Thank you once again :) ---- --CoryGlee (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Walt Disney Studios Logo.svg

This seems like {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States and c:Category:The Walt Disney Company. Maybe because the logo seems to incorporate a signature it needs to be licensed as non-free per c:COM:SIG#United States as an "artistic drawing"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This might fall into the same grey area about "fancier" signatures, when you compare the signature we have for Walt Disney to the one embedded in the logo. There's just enough alterations to make this logo version feel cleaner that we should be cautious and not consider it free. --Masem (t) 15:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I would not tend to agree with Masem here. Even if the text is altered, it's still simple typographic variation on common letters. If we consider the lettering as a font, which it essentially would be (even if a single-use one), that's clearly {{PD-textlogo}}. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

genre of music creation

I've created my own genre of music and i would like to release the meaning of it on wikipedia how do i accomplish that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elreyrecordco (talk • contribs) 01:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Elreyrecordco: I'm sorry but without substantial published independent third-party reliable sources and music notability would apply. It would probably be considered original research which is not allowed. When it has been reliable sourced, no doubt some editor will write about it. ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Image of Julia Morgan

I am wanting to use the above image File:Julia Morgan.jpg in the article about Hearst Castle, Morgan's most important architectural work. It is currently tagged as fair use for the article about Morgan, but was removed from the Hearst Castle article on the grounds that she is not the subject of that article. However, it has been suggested that, as the card was produced as a Carte de visite, i.e. multiple copies intended for widespread distribution for business and social purposes, that the image could properly been tagged as Template:PD-US-no notice. I would be most grateful for the views of editors more experienced than I am in this area. KJP1 (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that as a non-free image, currently you cannot use this image in the Hearst Castle article. Certainly the photographer was in business in 1898 (per Wilson's photographic magazine) and Otto Boye is still listed in the 1935-6 San Francisco Numerical telephone directory so that fits with the source date. Many Carte de visites did not display a copyright notice but it is also likely the photographer's images were never registered for copyright either, but even so {{PD-US-not renewed}} may be a better choice. What other opinions are there? ww2censor (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately copyright’s not my forte and I’ve no idea of other permissible options. But would your, or Nikkimaria’s, suggestions work? Many thanks for the advice. KJP1 (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Montourrr.png

This company does not exist anymore, and the owners (a coal company) don’t exist anymore either. Why is the file tagged as non-free? --100.6.163.186 (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 100.6.163.186. Copyright protection on a company's logo doesn't end simply because the company no longer is in business in the same way the copyright on a photo doesn't end because the photographer who took the photo has died, or the copyright on a painting doesn't end because the painter who painted it has died as explained in Copyright law of the United States#Duration of copyright. Intellectual property rights are often retained long after a company goes out of business by either the former owner(s) of the company or anyone who has purchased those rights. Perhaps in some cases, the new owner may intend to re-use the logo, but in other cases they may just want to prevent others from freely using it. Eventually after a certain amount of time has passed (see c:COM:HIRTLE) for more on this), the copyright may expire but until then it's going to be assumed to be non-free by Wikipedia unless there is another reason as to why it shouldn't be treated as such. In this case, File:Montourrr.png looks like it's probably too simple for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States and should be OK to convert to {{PD-logo}} and tagged to be moved to Wikimedia Commons. This, however, has nothing to do with whether the company is still in business or how old the logo is, but rather with the complexity of its design and whether that design would be considered eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly for copy editing purposes (no meaning was change): added words or letters are underlined and removed characters are stricken through -- 21:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)]

So does a diamond with the letters MONTOUR RR certify for copyright? Even if it does not exist? So, would someone who bought the coal company's logo rights know they have the Montour rights? This is complicated. Signed, --100.6.163.186 (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually it is not really complicated, you are just thinking too hard about it. The question of whether the current owner knows anything about the logo is of no consequence. What matters is that the image is too simple to obtain copyright in the first place, as mentioned by Marchjuly, so the correct license is {{PD-textlogo}} which is what the commons uses. ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Signed, --100.6.163.186 (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Stein 1861 Africa Umars Jihad State.jpg

User:T L Miles ("account inactive") created this file himself from a PD-Old map in 2008 and put the file license to PD-Old.

Does his work (crop; coloring an empire (single color); marking some cities and forts) cross the creativity threshold to warrant a new copyright? If yes, is it fair to assume an implied PD license and replace the PD-Old template? ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Given a photograph of the woman and asked to upload.

I was tasked with creating a wikipedia page for my boss and she has given me an image to upload, however when I upload it, it is removed. How do I go about adding it to wikipedia? It's a headshot of her taken for a previous job position she has held.AaronShirley (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @AaronShirley:. There's basically two ways to go about this. One is, if you want to use that specific photo, you'd have to get the person who took that photo (probably not your boss) to release it under a free license, so that anyone can reuse or modify it for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Images of living people pretty much have to be under a free license as the non-free content criteria don't apply.

Or, if you just want to upload any photo of your boss, the process is much simpler. Take a photo of your boss with your own camera. Then you are the copyright holder and can easily license the photo under a free, Wikipedia-compatible license. Then you'd just upload it to Wikimedia Commons and can then use it in the article. I hope this helps! Howicus (Did I mess up?) 03:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Image:I Voted in ACE19.png

Can someone check I got the copyright tagging correct on this please, the bots seem displeased. Image:I Voted in ACE19.png. Thanks Guy (help!) 16:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Working GMG^talk 16:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done GMG^talk 16:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, thanks Guy (help!) 18:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Can we modify fair use a bit?

This question is with reference to this deletion request. I have personally received an email from ISRO which says that content from its official website (www.isro.gov.in) can be used for non-commercial purposes as long as reproduced accurately.

Can we create an 'educational' fair-use template specific to this permission so that editors can use it to upload images for the above purpose? If we don't do something, Wikipedia will face a devastating loss of images in all articles related to ISRO, a prominent space-programme second only to NASA in the free world.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 07:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept any fair use content at all as explained in c:Commons:Fair use. If you'd like to try and get Commons to change its policy, then the place to do so would be on Wikimedia Commons, either at c:Commons talk:Fair use or at c:Commons:Village pump/Proposals. Wikipedia may use many files uploaded to Commons, but Commons policy needs to be discussed on Commons.

Wikipedia does, however, accept some fair use content uploaded locally as non-free content, but there are lots of restrictions placed on how such content can be used by WP:NFCC. Just for reference, direct permission from the original copyright holder is not really needed to upload something as non-free content as long as you can show that it has been previously published by the copyright holder. So, if you can give an example of the type of image you want to use (i.e. its source) and where you want to use it (i.e. the name of a Wikipedia article), it will be easier to give you a general assessment as to whether it would be OK per NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Since you have asked for example, take a look at the images present in Chandrayaan-2. Most of the images present there, except Infobox and the simulations, are tagged for deletion. Infact, the infobox image was rescued only because I personally made an effort to find a free version published by the Press Information Bureau.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 08:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Let me confess; my proposal doesn't fit WP:NFCC. I was asking for an exception here; a specialized Template dedicated to content from the ISRO website. But, obviously, Wikipedia will not change it's policies just for me, so no need to try. Thanks for taking out the time to reply. Regards— Vaibhavafro ^💬 08:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The files being discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ohsin are not subject to WP:NFCC; so you need to discuss them at Commons if you want to argue that they shouldn’t be deleted.

If you asking about whether such files can be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content, then the best answer I can give is maybe. It will all depend on whether their non-free use can meet all ten of the criteria given in WP:NFCCP. Just looking at the images, it seems that WP:NFCC#1,WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 are going to be the hardest of the ten criteria to meet. Possible perhaps, but the justification for non-free use is going to have be more than just wanting the reader to see the image for the sake of just seeing the image per WP:FREER, WP:NFC#Number of items, WP:NFC#CS, WP:EDUCATIONAL and WP:DECORATIVE.

Sometimes exemptions are granted to the NFCC as explained in WP:NFEXMP, but these tend to be just for maintenance pages. It seems unlikely that a blanket exemption is going to granted for a particular genre of articles or a particular source of certain images. You can try proposing such a thing at at WT:NFCC, but I think you’re going find it really hard to establish a consensus to do so. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I responded your question on the commons at c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#[email protected] because maybe c:Template:GODL-India applies to these images and which you applied to the infobox image. I think fulfilling all 10 WP:NFCC criteria would be virtually impossible and most likely you might only get away with two non-free images at most and certainly not all of them. You are virtually unlikely to get any agreement to modify or make a new template. ww2censor (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor:Just read the terms of use at https://www.isro.gov.in/terms-of-use ; it hilarious! That is a hangover from the pre-internet era. And that basically represents the email I received, with the addition that non-commercial use is allowed.

c:Template:GODL-India should ideally be applicable to all Indian government data, but the world-infamous Indian bureaucracy has managed to derail everything. That said, presently, GODL applies only to files from those Indian Gov websites which have a copyright policy similar to the one here (according to consensus).

And, I am not going to try to establish an exemption to WP:NFCC; that will be a Herculean task.— Vaibhavafro ^💬 14:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Using the Upload Wizard

I would like to upload a photo into a created article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Oliver_(artist,_born_1823) using the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard on the basis of Fair Use. I have copied the following photograph from the web. https://thumbnail.myheritageimages.com/288/193/288193/500/500004_321803m8c23zy5h0g1ai82_C_398x570.jpg It derives from the web site https://www.myheritage.com/search-records?action=person&siteId=288193&indId=1000037&origin=profile

The stages are 1. Choosing the file/photo from my PC viz. William Oliver Williams.jpg

2a) Providing a descriptive name viz. William Oliver Williams (1823-1901).jpg 2b). Providing a brief description of the contents of this file viz. Photo of William Oliver Williams (1823-1901) Artist, professional name William Oliver

3. Provide source and copyright information. Then there are 3 options a)This is a free work b)This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use c)This file doesn't fit either of the categories above. I presume the third option (c) should be taken? I don't think the photo is copyrighted. It may be from a family album. Then I presumably get the opportunity to somehow attach the template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale_biog to the photo. Is 3c the right choice, as the photo is a non-free image that is not copyrighted? The trouble with the Wizard is that you don't know what to expect on the next page. Am I on the right track to getting the photo into an infobox in the article? BFP1 (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC) BFP1 (talk)Corrected BFP1 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Obviously 3c is not acceptable. The Wizard does not make it clear how to upload the photo or seem to provide an opportunity to attach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale_biog which should justify fair use in this case. Can anybody help me? BFP1 (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi BFP1. The Upload Wizard, I believe, was created just to make uploading a bit easier to do and only covers the most common cases. Basically, for all intents and purposes, an image is either copyrighted (i.e. a non-free image) or not copyrighted (i.e. free image); option (c) seems to have just been added just to help explain that there are really only options (a) and (b). When unsure, it's best to assume the image is protected by copyright as a precaution, and upload it as such. If your mistaken, the licensing can always be corrected at a latter date. Mistakes the other way around can be fixed as well, but immediately stating something is a free image doesn't provide the same amount of protection as stating it's a copyrighted image.

Anyway, being in a family album isn't really directly related to copyright status; it's possible that the photo was taken so long ago that it's now within the public domain, but just because a family member possesses it doesn't mean it's not protected by copyright. If you can figure out who took the photo and when it was taken, then it might be OK per c:COM:HIRTLE to upload as a "free image" to Wikimedia Commons under a public domain license. If not and your unable to get the copyright holder to release the photo under a free license as explained in WP:COPYREQ, the other option would be to upload it locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. As long as you can show that the file was published (WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion) and the way you intend to use the file meets all ten non-free content use criteria, you should be OK to upload the file under the license {{Non-free biog pic}} using the non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale biog}}. Generally, non-free images of deceased persons can be uploaded and used per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as there is no reasonable expectation that a free equivalent can be created or found, the image is not coming from a source which violates someone else's copyright and the image is being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone Wikipedia article about the person in the image (others types of non-free uses tend to be much harder to justify per WP:NFC#CS).

Now, if the Upload Wizard doesn't give you the option to select the license and non-free use rationale I mentioned above, you can always edit the file's page after it's been uploaded and replace the license/rationale added by the wizard with something more appropriate. Does this answer your question? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Marchjuly. I discussed this with the question titled Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (WP:FUC)on 12 November and NTep suggested the way forward was using the template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_use_rationale_biog. I thought it would be straight forward, but as you can see, I have found it not to be so. I would really appreciate it if someone could help me upload the photo into an infobox in the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Oliver_(artist,_born_1823) . Previous discussion has established that the photo will not become a free image until 2021 (apparently a safety margin of 120 years after the death of the person in the photo is required, to take into account the likely lifespan of the photographer plus 70 years). BFP1 (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The sort of problem a novice encounters is how/when to add the templates suggested. Do you upload the photo in the first stage of the Wizard upload process and then add the templates after the .jpg? BFP1 (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want to ask someone else to upload the file for you, try WP:FFU; however, all you really need to do is upload the file as non-free content using the Upload Wizard. Just follow the instructions and pick whichever copyright license/non-free use rationale seems most appropriate. After the file has been uploaded, you can then edit the file’s page and replace the license and rationale with the ones that Nthep suggested. Basically, the editing is no different from editing any Wikipedia page: remove the templates you want to remove and then add the templates you wasn’t to add. Fill in the non-free use rationale as completely as you can and then save the page. You can practice doing this in your sandbox if you want to see how the file’s page will look. The only thing you need to be careful about is making sure you don’t remove anything other than the copyright license and the non-free use rationale. Even in that case though, you can always go back and re-add what you mistakenly removed. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Marchjuly, I have tried using the Wizard and have chosen the option This is an historic portrait of a person no longer alive.This is an historic photograph or other depiction of a person who is no longer alive. It will be used as the primary means of visual identification of that person in the article about them. Then there are a series of questions that I am not sure about answering. I thought that by attaching filled in recommended templates would obviate these. There seems no indication of where to attach such templates. You mention changing templates after uploading but how do I upload in the first place if I don't provide the required information. Are we talking at cross purposes. I apologise for my ignorance. BFP1 (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Against the odds, I think I have uploaded it! I will endeavour to attach templates now BFP1 (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand that before I transfer the uploaded photo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Oliver_Williams_(1823-1901).jpg to the article I should attach the two suggested templates. I'm not sure how/where to edit them in. I don't want to mess anything up. Again I apologise for being so slow, but I am getting there. BFP1 (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The file looks OK. You should add a source link to the website where you found the photo. The "Internet" is not really the source. Edit the file's page and add the source to the |source= parameter. I've replaced {{Non-free use rationale 2}} with {{Non-free use rationale biog}}; so, once you've added the source, you can add the file to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I've done that Marchjuly. The image has also been appropriately reduced. So it should now be ready to be added to the article.Thanks for your help and patience. BFP1 (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

California Tobacco Control Program videos on YouTube

https://www.flavorshookkids.org/ is part of the California Department of Public Health. All the YouTube videos are in the public domain. I would like the first 5 outbreak videos uploaded into one video. I would like to check here if they are in fact in the public domain. It was launched by the California Department of Public Health. QuackGuru (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Logo in a userbox

Is it ok to use a (vastly reduced size) fair use logo in a userbox? I see many userboxes that contain tiny versions of corporate and sport organisation logos. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Only if it's a freely licensed or public domain logo. Many logos are too simple to be copyrighted, but fair use logos in userboxes would be disallowed per WP:NFCC#9. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

See also WP:UBX#Caution about image use as well for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

File:AyitaviationSecondLogo.png removed

This is the logo of a company, there is no reason it should be unavailable to display on wikipedia especially when it is clearly used on the Hebrew version of the same wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notumengi (talk • contribs) 00:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)‎

Hi Notumengi. Each Wikimedia Foundation Project (e.g. English Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia) has it's own respective policies and guidelines; so, if you want to add an image to an English Wikipedia article, you need to do so in accordance with relevant English Wikipedia policies and guidelines. What they do on Hebrew Wikipedia is not really of a concern here.

You uploaded File:AyitaviationSecondLogo.png as non-free content, but you failed to provide a non-free use rationale for each use on Wikipedia. That is why the bot removed the file with this edit. The bot left an edit summary linking to WP:NFC#Implementation. Did you take a look at that page? If not, then please do. After you've read that page, please add the missing non-free use rationale if you want the avoid the file form being deleted per WP:F6. I suggest you use Template:Non-free use rationale logo for the rationale, but you can write up your own per WP:FUR#Non-template is you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Wangnaidong.jpg

I was going to clean this up a bit since it's probably incorrectly licensed (I think it should be {{Non-free biog pic}}) and it also doesn't really have a non-free use rationale ({{Non-free use rationale biog}} would work); however, there's nothing in the article Wang Naidong about when this person was born or when they might've died. Apparently he last appeared in a film in 1944, but he could've lived on for many years after that and might possibly be still living today. WP:BDP says that Wikipedia assumes that a person is alive until age 115 unless there are reliable sources stating otherwise, so if we count backwards from 2019, that would mean he would have to have been born before 1904. Since the article says he first appeared in a film in 1923, being born in 1904 would've made him about 19 at the time, which again seem possible. The source given for the image is in Chinese and I can't read it, but maybe there's something about when he died. Any suggestions on what to do here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I'd like to know a bit more about the publication, and am hoping to be able to look at that site noted ([3]), at least via Google Translate, but the site seems to be down entirely right now. If it's true that the author of the work is unknown, it could be that this piece would apply, from the Chinese copyright regulations: Article 18: In the case of a work of an unknown author, the protection term in relation to the rights as mentioned by item 5 to item 17 of first paragraph of Article 10 of the Law shall be 50 years ending on December 31 of the fiftieth year after the first publication of the work. Article 21 of the Law shall be applicable after the author of the work has been identified, but we'd need to know if the author truly is unidentifiable, or if the uploader just couldn't locate the information. If the author is known, the Chinese term is life+50, so at that point we'd need to try to find out when the death of the photographer occurred. It doesn't seem how long the subject of the photo lived is relevant though; we'd be worried about the photographer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Seraphimblade. The only reason I mentioned BDP is because of WP:FREER; technically, it might be argued that if the subject was still living that a non-free couldn't be used if a free-equivalent could be created/found; however, that would be a moot point if this never was eligible or no longer is eligible for copyright protection under Chinese of US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Excerpt from a Bible

I have an image that I took, a photo from my SSBE Bible and wanted to include it on the SSBE article, but I got a message about it being held in dispute here, I was just wondering, is this free use? The Bible is copyrighted as most Bibles are, but it's my picture of some of its text. And I don't understand the dispute here. Was hoping that someone might clarify. Thank you. In Citer (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

From what this is, most of the text would be public domain, as it is based on a 1901 translation with some words substituted. Some content in that Bible would be still in copyright like the preface and the vocabulary section, so don't photograph those. Fair use would not be justified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Looking at File:SSBE excerpt from Psalm 103 and Psalm 104.jpg you must grant a free license for your photograph, even if the underlying text is public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the SSBE is copyright 1981. A photograph of a copyrighted text is still a copyright violation, what is called a "derivative work". This does not come anywhere near meeting our criteria for a non-free use. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

HiOrangemike. I noticed you deleted the image. Would you care to explain how I can go about uploading the image to the article. I have seen that with other Bibles, excerpts have been uploaded to the article. It really shouldn't be a problem imo In Citer (talk) 12:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You don't. Some versions of the Bible are old enough to be in the public domain, in which case that would be fine, but this one is still under copyright. So, I'm afraid it is a problem and is not permitted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a shame. Well thank you for answering my questions Graeme Bartlett , --Orange Mike | Talk and Seraphimblade In Citer (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Image of Manuel Pérez Treviño

Commons has two images reportedly showing this person, but both photos re fo a group and there is some question as to which person in the group is the article subject, so I've been looking for an alternative, and I found this image which seems is reliably claimed to be him. The page indicates the image was taken in 1928, presumably in Mexico. So I'm trying to figure out if, despite the copyright claims, this is maybe actually public domain, or would a claim of fair use be a better route to go? Beeblebrox (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

You should start by asking Marianapt3 for the real source of the Commons images. I highly doubt it's their own work. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Audio Recordings pre-1972

So, the US copyright office says legislation didn't protect sounding recordings made pre-1972 [4] - which could have been restored by Uruguay, but if I'm reading right, not for sound recordings made by an American citizen (which is my case of interest). The underlying sounds I'm interested in aren't copyrighted (they're bird calls), but there was probably enough choices made in how/where/etc to record them that they'd attract copyright if it were an image. They weren't published anywhere I can find, and the author died in 1964. Any idea where I can go to try to figure out if they're copyrighted still? WilyD 06:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Shashikala Kakodkar.jpg

This file is released under a {{self}}. The description states it was taken in 2011. The EXIF data gives a different date and also seems to suggest that the file comes from Facebook. It's quite possible that the uploader is the person who took the photo and they uploaded to Facebook. Perhaps that means it's OK to keep as is. After looking at some of the other photos uploaded by this person, there are two others (File:Bust of Luís de Menezes Bragança.jpg and File:Plaque at Farmagudi Fort, Goa.jpg) which also seem to come from Facebook. Is it best just to assume good faith here regarding the each file's licensing, or should OTRS verification be requested? I'm just curious because there's no reason for these to be kept locally if their licensing is not a problem for Commons.

One last thing about the bust photo, it seems like a license is should also be provided for the bust/statue, right? Per c:COM:FOP India, publicly displayed 3D artworks aren't eligible for copyright protection; so, c:Template:FoP-India would seem to applicable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)