Media copyright questions |
---|
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.
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. |
|
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
| ||
Fair Use?
Hello! I am currently working on creating an article for the biologist Sharlene Santana. I am looking to upload an image of Santana to Wikipedia, to place in the article's infobox. Her university webpage has an image that I would like to use: https://www.biology.washington.edu/people/profile/sharlene-santana Can I upload the image from this webpage directly to Wikipedia under fair use, with appropriate rationale? I know that it can't be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Isobel.Isobel (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- As she is still alive, no this cannot be used. We (specifically the WMF) disallow the use of non-free/fair use images of living persons given that a free image should be possible to obtain. You may want to see if there are ways of asking her directly if she has images that she can provide under a free license. --Masem (t) 23:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'm actually meeting with her tomorrow (over Zoom) and I'm in contact with her regularly over email. If I ask her directly for an image (like, images that she has taken of herself), could I upload those? In that case, would I upload them to Wikipedia directly or would I upload them to Wikimedia Commons? Isobel.Isobel (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Isobel.Isobel. Files uploaded under a free license by their copyright holders are, in my opinion, preferred over those uploaded by third-parties on behalf of copyright holders because there's one less link in verification chain (so to speak) that needs to be examined. Things tend to be much easier to sort out when a copyright holder unploads a file of their "own work" an is able to provide a link or some other information like this because the copyright holder doesn't really need to ask themselves for permission to upload the file. However, some people for whatever reason would just rather have someone else upload the file for them and that's perfectly OK; just make sure that Ms. Santana understands what that means and that there's no going back and changing her mind after the fact. The first thing she needs to understand is that the copyright holder of a photo is generally considered to be the photographer who takes the photo, and not the subject of the photo. There might be cases in which there's a copyright transfer agreement in place, but being the subject of a photo doesn't mean there's an automatic transfer of copyright; there may be other rights involved unrelated to copyright, but these aren't so relevant to Wikipedia or Commons.The next thing that she should understand is that by releasing her work under a free license like the ones listed here, she is just making it easier for others to use a particular version of the work. She's sort of giving others advance permission to use her work to eliminate the necessity of someone having to contact her and asking for permission each time they want to do so. She's not transferring her copyirght ownership to Wikipedia, Commons or anyone else, but is just establishing the terms under which people may reuse or modify her work. The licenses accepted by Wikipedia and Commons are, however, quite liberal compared to some other more restrictive types of licenses; so, she should understand that she's basically going to be agreeing to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the work at anytime and use for any purpose (including commercial and derivative use). This means that there's always a chance that someone may use the work in a way that she doesn't approve, but they can do so as long as they comply with the terms of the license the work is released under. Licenses such as "for educational use only", "for Wikipedia use only", "for non-commercial use only" are not accepted by Wikipedia or Commons; so, she shouldn't upload the work if she's worried about those things.Finally, she can upload the file to either Wikipedia or Commons. Commons is a global project and files uploaded to it can be used on any Wikimedia Foundation project; Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a local project and files uploaded to it can only be used on it. There are many different language Wikipedia and many articles are translated into other languages; so, uploading freely licensed files to Commmons makes it much easier to use the file on these other language Wikipedias. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for all of the information! Isobel.Isobel (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Isobel.Isobel. Files uploaded under a free license by their copyright holders are, in my opinion, preferred over those uploaded by third-parties on behalf of copyright holders because there's one less link in verification chain (so to speak) that needs to be examined. Things tend to be much easier to sort out when a copyright holder unploads a file of their "own work" an is able to provide a link or some other information like this because the copyright holder doesn't really need to ask themselves for permission to upload the file. However, some people for whatever reason would just rather have someone else upload the file for them and that's perfectly OK; just make sure that Ms. Santana understands what that means and that there's no going back and changing her mind after the fact. The first thing she needs to understand is that the copyright holder of a photo is generally considered to be the photographer who takes the photo, and not the subject of the photo. There might be cases in which there's a copyright transfer agreement in place, but being the subject of a photo doesn't mean there's an automatic transfer of copyright; there may be other rights involved unrelated to copyright, but these aren't so relevant to Wikipedia or Commons.The next thing that she should understand is that by releasing her work under a free license like the ones listed here, she is just making it easier for others to use a particular version of the work. She's sort of giving others advance permission to use her work to eliminate the necessity of someone having to contact her and asking for permission each time they want to do so. She's not transferring her copyirght ownership to Wikipedia, Commons or anyone else, but is just establishing the terms under which people may reuse or modify her work. The licenses accepted by Wikipedia and Commons are, however, quite liberal compared to some other more restrictive types of licenses; so, she should understand that she's basically going to be agreeing to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the work at anytime and use for any purpose (including commercial and derivative use). This means that there's always a chance that someone may use the work in a way that she doesn't approve, but they can do so as long as they comply with the terms of the license the work is released under. Licenses such as "for educational use only", "for Wikipedia use only", "for non-commercial use only" are not accepted by Wikipedia or Commons; so, she shouldn't upload the work if she's worried about those things.Finally, she can upload the file to either Wikipedia or Commons. Commons is a global project and files uploaded to it can be used on any Wikimedia Foundation project; Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a local project and files uploaded to it can only be used on it. There are many different language Wikipedia and many articles are translated into other languages; so, uploading freely licensed files to Commmons makes it much easier to use the file on these other language Wikipedias. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'm actually meeting with her tomorrow (over Zoom) and I'm in contact with her regularly over email. If I ask her directly for an image (like, images that she has taken of herself), could I upload those? In that case, would I upload them to Wikipedia directly or would I upload them to Wikimedia Commons? Isobel.Isobel (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Public domain question (2)
In your opinion, is File:The Vanity Fair Diaries.jpg simple enough to be public domain in the US? Thanks. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure! It depends if it was only registered in the US for copyright if it's PD-US or not; I'd need a little bit more info. Specifically, was it published outside of the US and registered for copyright? Also, a similar threshold of originality was established earlier, so NFCC is always a safe bet :) Sennecaster (What now?) 01:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Therapyisgood: someone off-wiki said that this is published in the UK where they have an extremely low ToO, and should be kept with the fair use rationale. Sennecaster (What now?) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
File:Tampa Bay Lightning Logo 2011.svg
Any opinions on whether this logo needs to be licensed as non-free per c:COM:TOO United States? The same file exists on Commons as c:File:Tampa Bay Lightning 2011.svg; so, one of the two files is licensed incorrectly. The local non-free version was uploaded before the Commons one and it might've just been uploaded as non-free as a precaution. The Commons version was transferred from German Wikipedia, but was originally uploaded there as PD-logo. My guess is that someone wanted to use local English Wikipedia file on German Wikipedia, but couldn't because it was a local file. So, they uploaded a local version for use on German Wikipedia and licensed it as PD; the file then got subsequently transferred to Commons. Regardless, the two files are identical and a local non-free version isn't needed if the Commons version is OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: the TOO in the US is extremely high, and that is definitely below TOO. There is no special shading and is just a simple arrangement of shapes. The Commons version is OK I believe! Sennecaster (What now?) 16:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
c:File:Fischer-Spassky1972.jpg
This image has been linked into World Chess Championship 1972 by User:Blockhouse321. I suspected that a copyright violation might be involved, since it is a photograph of a signed work of art that is not in the public domain. Am I justified in my suspicion? Some discussion of the provenance of the image can be found here: Talk:World Chess Championship 1972#Fischer-Spassky1972.jpg. I removed the link [1], but my remove was reverted [2]. Thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- It is a recent piece of work still in copyright. The file has been deleted from Commons. Nthep (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- If User:Blockhouse321 is able verify they are the copyright holder, as claimed in their reinsertion summary, they will have to provide a permission statement through the Volunteer Response Team for it to be restored. ww2censor (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are many camera taken images of paintings at Wikipedia|WikiCommons. This image is no different. I took the picture with my camera and I control the copyright of the image. END OF STORY! Blockhouse321 (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- As I said at your talk page, you control the copyright of your photo but you do not control the copyright of the picture in it. As the painter only died in 2017 and copyright in Iceland lasts for 70 years after death (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iceland) the painting you took a photo of is still in copyright. Nthep (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blockhouse321: As Nthep says the picture, which you took a photo of, has it's own copyright. Your photo is a derivative work (also see WP:DW) and requires two permissions, that of the original artist AND that of the photographer. If you can't obtain both then the image will not be restored until you do or 70 years after the death of the original artist. Sorry but, NO, you do not have complete "control the copyright of the image". ww2censor (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Blockhouse. Based upon what you posted above about taking a picture of a painting, you might want to take a look at c:Commons:2D copying and c:Commons:PD-Art because you might find them helpful. As you point out above, there are lots of pictures of paintings uploaded to Commons, but usually that is only allowed when the painting itself is, for whatever reason, not/no longer considered to be protected by copyright or has been released under free license by its copyright holder (i.e. the artist who painted it). In some cases, you as a photographer may be able to claim a new copyright over a photo you take of the painting as explained in Wikipedia:Derivative works and c:Commons:Derivative works, but that would only be if your photo is something more than just a slavish (i.e. simple) reproduction of the original work. If the painting you photograph is still protected by copyright, then taking a photo of it doesn't void that copyright or transfer that copyright to the photographer, and the original copyright still needs to be taken into account. Anyway, The file you uploaded to Commons was deleted by a Commons administrator named c:User:DMacks. Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects which means there's not much that anyone can do about that here except to try and explain why the file was deleted. If you think the file was deleted in error, you can ask DMacks for clarification by posting a message at c:User talk:DMacks or you otherwise follow the instructions given in c:Commons:Undeletion requests. For what it's worth, I'm not a Commons administrator so I can't see the file that was deleted; however, based upon what's been posted above, it does seem like you might be misunderstanding an important thing about c:Commons:Licensing.Finally, perhaps you could, if you tried, find a similar file uploaded by someone else with pretty much the same issue which has yet to be deleted; that, however, wouldn't really prove anything really. Lots of files are uploaded every day to Commons, and they're not vetted in any way. Many files uploaded ultimately end up being deleted as "copyright violations" as they are found and assessed, but that sometimes can take quite a bit of time. The people uploading these files aren't necessarily bad people, and in most cases they are simply people unfamiliar with Commons policy regarding image licensing who made a good faith mistake. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- As I said at your talk page, you control the copyright of your photo but you do not control the copyright of the picture in it. As the painter only died in 2017 and copyright in Iceland lasts for 70 years after death (see c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Iceland) the painting you took a photo of is still in copyright. Nthep (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
- There are many camera taken images of paintings at Wikipedia|WikiCommons. This image is no different. I took the picture with my camera and I control the copyright of the image. END OF STORY! Blockhouse321 (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Image found on Blogger
This blog post contains two images which are the original work of the blogger, hosted by Blogger which seems to be a Google service. I cannot work out what the legal status of those images would be; I haven't done this before and don't know how to find out. --Paracelsus888 (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
- Paracelsus888: I presume you are asking about the Baldwin Market Building images: they are copyright to the photographer. The post is attributed to Randy Nishimura so if you contact him, he might be willing to release them under a free licence we accept. Otherwise you need to find a different source, get someone to take a new photo or take it yourself. 19:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Copyright of a signature
Hello. I have in my posession a signature of a person who has a wikipedia page. The signature was written in 1920's. I was wondering, since i know that in order for an unpublished image to be considered public domain it has to be 120 years old; is it the same with a handwritten signature? I would guess not since it is written with a pencil by the person himself. But i want to be sure before i add it to the page. I am the great-grandson of given person. E-Hakim96 (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi E-Hakim96, the time of copyright depends on the country. What country is it? In the United States, signatures can be in the public domain depending on their originality. See {{PD-signature}} — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
License of Pictures from Snapchat Stories
I don't know how to classify this image, is it really available for licensing under CC BY-SA 4.0 if it is an image from a snapchat story, what are the regulations there? (From Snapchat, personal rights or Commons) --asozialebohne (talk) 10:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Asozialebohne no, the images are copyrighted unless it's specifically published under that license by the copyright owner (in this case,
the person in the picture.) Ahmetlii (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Image Copyright taken by a German in the Netherlands during World War
Hi Folks!! A question, regarding this image: [3] This was taken by a German soldier at the end of 1944 or early 1945 (I've only just started the article). It was taken in the Netherlands, as that was where the radio team was based. There are hardly any images of this type. I've been looking for about three years and seen never anything like it, or even one of them, hence the reason for the question. Is it possible it is in some kind of public domain as it was taken by a member of the German army? I have no idea, really. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 23:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: it's not PD; WP:PD#German World War II images explains that 70-year copyright was restored in 1995, and this would be out of copyright in 2025 at the latest in Germany, and 2040 in the US. You have an NFUR on it, so it's fine as is. The image is also not PD-Netherlands; Netherlands has had long-standing 70-year copyright even in the middle of World War II. Hope this helped, Sennecaster (What now?) 12:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sennecaster: I thought it would be something like that. Can the image be used in more than one article. I would like to use it in the Red Orchestra as it is the top most article. scope_creepTalk 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, you'd just have to expand the NFUR for it I believe. Real shame that it's copyrighted, but that is how it is :/ Sennecaster (What now?) 03:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: I don’t see how this meets WP:NFCC#8 at alliance as it’s currently used because neither the photo of the radio itself nor the radio itself is really the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article where the file is being used. You can “expand the NFUR” all you like, but the NFUR should reflect how the image is currently being used, not how it could possibly be used, and the image is clearly not fine as it is per WP:JUSTONE. — Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: The article is barely started. That is one of these articles where all the sources are in Dutch, and it was a secret organisation, so I am still at the getting the books together stage. It will probably take a year to write it since I don't speak nor read dutch, but it will get done. The subject at the start of the work, worked with Soviet Intelligence (again secret) so there are not many pictures of these transmitters. I plan to move it to the Red Orchestra page where it is more salient. It is mentioned quite heavily in there. I plan also to possibly create an article on the procedures for use i.e. the cyphers used and method. In that instance would it be generally ok to use it in three places? I could put a section, on his work with radio at the Daan Galoouze article. Would it be ok to use it in three locations, assuming it has content to support it? Is that how it works? I'm assuming by expanding the nfur that's what it means. scope_creepTalk 10:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've don't really know what "expanding the nfur" is intended to mean, but a NFUR is supposed to accurately reflect how a file is being used and clarify how that use meets all ten non-free content use criteria listed at WP:NFCCP. A non-free photo of the radio transmitter that Goulooze used is not really needed for the reader to understand that his main duty was "to maintain on-going radio contact with Soviet intelligence"; so, right away there are WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS issues with the file's non-free use. You could add as much information to the NFUR (i.e. expand) as you want, but that won't change anything since the file is going to be assessed on how it's being used and not on how elaborate or detailed the NFUR is. The article may be, as you state, "barely started", but that's not generally considered to a valid justification for non-free use. There may be potential to use the image someday, but the same could probably be said about many non-free images with respect to many articles. It's better to wait until there's a pretty strong contextual justification for non-free use in an article before adding corresponding non-free images; if you try "putting the cart before the horse" (i.e. add the images first and then the corresponding contextual content later), the usage is going to have a strongly WP:DECORATIVE feel to it and be at risk of being tagged or otherwise nominated for deletion.One of the ten non-free content use criteria is WP:NFCC#7, which states that a non-free image must be used in at least one article; so, non-free images not being used in one article can be speedily deleted per WP:F5. There is, however, no non-free content use crtierion that states a non-free image can be used in only one article. It's important to understand though that non-free content use is by definition already an "exemption" or "exception" from WP:COPY and we are expected to try and keep such use as minimal as possible whenever possible. A single use of a non-free file is already rather "exceptional" so to speak, which means that additional uses of the same file are typically going to require a stronger justification for such uses. For example, if you were to create a Wikipedia article about this particular radio device, then it would most likely be OK to use this non-free image for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of such an article. Trying to use the file in other ways or in other articles, however, is likely going to be much harder to justify. Try reading the Goulooze article as is with the image and assess how actually seeing it improves your understanding of what he did or the radio itself. Then, try reading the article without the image and assess whether your understanding significantly changes in detrimental way. In other words, try to assess how the image contextually improves the general reader's understanding of the article content and whether removing the image is going to be really detrimental to that understanding. If removing it isn't really detrimental to the reader's understanding, then the image probably shouldn't be there in the first place. The file has been tagged with {{Di-fails NFCC}} by another editor. If you can find sourced commentary either about the physical appearance of the radio itself or some other aspect of it that makes seeing what it looks like contextually important to the reader of the article, then there will be a much stronger justification for the file's non-free use if you add that content to the Goulooze article, and the chances of keeping it in that article will increase. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: That is a pretty decent explanation of the current state. I found out in the interim the image, wasn't what I thought it was. I contacted the Crypto Museum and they came and told me that the radio transmitter, in the image, looked homemade, which confirmed several facts I knew about but couldn't link them together, prior to identifying it. Up until that point, it was background info, So I'm planning to just let the image be deleted. It is not of any real use to me. The Crypto Museum doesn't have an image of this device either. Apparently, the ww2 transmitters are very rare, so the discussion is moot. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 13:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've don't really know what "expanding the nfur" is intended to mean, but a NFUR is supposed to accurately reflect how a file is being used and clarify how that use meets all ten non-free content use criteria listed at WP:NFCCP. A non-free photo of the radio transmitter that Goulooze used is not really needed for the reader to understand that his main duty was "to maintain on-going radio contact with Soviet intelligence"; so, right away there are WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS issues with the file's non-free use. You could add as much information to the NFUR (i.e. expand) as you want, but that won't change anything since the file is going to be assessed on how it's being used and not on how elaborate or detailed the NFUR is. The article may be, as you state, "barely started", but that's not generally considered to a valid justification for non-free use. There may be potential to use the image someday, but the same could probably be said about many non-free images with respect to many articles. It's better to wait until there's a pretty strong contextual justification for non-free use in an article before adding corresponding non-free images; if you try "putting the cart before the horse" (i.e. add the images first and then the corresponding contextual content later), the usage is going to have a strongly WP:DECORATIVE feel to it and be at risk of being tagged or otherwise nominated for deletion.One of the ten non-free content use criteria is WP:NFCC#7, which states that a non-free image must be used in at least one article; so, non-free images not being used in one article can be speedily deleted per WP:F5. There is, however, no non-free content use crtierion that states a non-free image can be used in only one article. It's important to understand though that non-free content use is by definition already an "exemption" or "exception" from WP:COPY and we are expected to try and keep such use as minimal as possible whenever possible. A single use of a non-free file is already rather "exceptional" so to speak, which means that additional uses of the same file are typically going to require a stronger justification for such uses. For example, if you were to create a Wikipedia article about this particular radio device, then it would most likely be OK to use this non-free image for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of such an article. Trying to use the file in other ways or in other articles, however, is likely going to be much harder to justify. Try reading the Goulooze article as is with the image and assess how actually seeing it improves your understanding of what he did or the radio itself. Then, try reading the article without the image and assess whether your understanding significantly changes in detrimental way. In other words, try to assess how the image contextually improves the general reader's understanding of the article content and whether removing the image is going to be really detrimental to that understanding. If removing it isn't really detrimental to the reader's understanding, then the image probably shouldn't be there in the first place. The file has been tagged with {{Di-fails NFCC}} by another editor. If you can find sourced commentary either about the physical appearance of the radio itself or some other aspect of it that makes seeing what it looks like contextually important to the reader of the article, then there will be a much stronger justification for the file's non-free use if you add that content to the Goulooze article, and the chances of keeping it in that article will increase. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: The article is barely started. That is one of these articles where all the sources are in Dutch, and it was a secret organisation, so I am still at the getting the books together stage. It will probably take a year to write it since I don't speak nor read dutch, but it will get done. The subject at the start of the work, worked with Soviet Intelligence (again secret) so there are not many pictures of these transmitters. I plan to move it to the Red Orchestra page where it is more salient. It is mentioned quite heavily in there. I plan also to possibly create an article on the procedures for use i.e. the cyphers used and method. In that instance would it be generally ok to use it in three places? I could put a section, on his work with radio at the Daan Galoouze article. Would it be ok to use it in three locations, assuming it has content to support it? Is that how it works? I'm assuming by expanding the nfur that's what it means. scope_creepTalk 10:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: I don’t see how this meets WP:NFCC#8 at alliance as it’s currently used because neither the photo of the radio itself nor the radio itself is really the subject of sourced critical commentary in the article where the file is being used. You can “expand the NFUR” all you like, but the NFUR should reflect how the image is currently being used, not how it could possibly be used, and the image is clearly not fine as it is per WP:JUSTONE. — Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, you'd just have to expand the NFUR for it I believe. Real shame that it's copyrighted, but that is how it is :/ Sennecaster (What now?) 03:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sennecaster: I thought it would be something like that. Can the image be used in more than one article. I would like to use it in the Red Orchestra as it is the top most article. scope_creepTalk 12:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
File:Ye Ethiopia Lijoch TV.jpeg
Can File:Ye Ethiopia Lijoch TV.jpeg move to Wikimedia Commons for threshold of originality? The Supermind (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi The Supermind. For Commons to accept such a logo it would need to be too simple for copyright protection in both the United States and the country of origin. It seems to be close if not above the threshold of originality for the United States per c:COM:TOO United States even if the copyright law of Ethiopia isn't so clear. You could try asking about this at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, but my opinion is that this probably is too complex of a logo to be considered public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
File:SportsShoesLogo.png
File:SportsShoesLogo.png was uploaded as non-free and it probably is per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom which means it can't really be moved to Commons. It does, on the other hand, seem to be too simple for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States which makes me wonder whether this should be converted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on Wikipedia. I don't see how the way this logo is being used in Bruce Bannister meets WP:NFCC#8; the file was originally used in Sportsshoes.com, but that was merged into the Bannister article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sportsshoes.com (2nd nomination). Not surprisingly, the AfD for the article didn't even consider the non-free use of the logo (which seems to happen alot with merges and redirects); so, the image was moved to the Bannister article as well by default. Converting this to "PD-ineligible-USonly" would allow the image to be kept, but the licensing shouldn't be converted for that reason alone. Anyone feel that this shouldn't be "PD-inelgible-USonly"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Marchjuly: I agree with your reasoning but the logo really adds nothing significant to the section of the article it is now in. ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
File:Officejavadiam.png
Any chance of File:Officejavadiam.png being converted to {{PD-signature}} per c:COM:Signature? Is there an artistic quality to it (like you might find in some non-Latin scripts) which would mean this should be treated as non-free. I don't think the Persian language (which I'm assuming this is) uses pictograph-like characters in the same way that Chinese and Japanese do, but there is calligraphic feel to it (i.e. it's not a romanized signature). Even though this being used in the main infobox of Abdollah Javadi-Amoli, it doesn't really seem to meet WP:NFCC#8 since there's nothing in the body of the article which even mentions the signature, which means it's probably can't be kept if it needs to remain as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Youtube
I'm trying to add the Template:YouTube CC-BY license header on both File:Rowdyrebel2021.PNG and File:Queen Naija in 2018.PNG. All it brings up is "Error:No page id specified on YouTube". How do I fix this? You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- en.wiki does not have these templates, but Commons does. You may want to export those images to Commons (it should be a top level menu option on the file pages) so that you get that template. --Masem (t) 00:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Uploading new truck image to page
Hi, I'd like to upload a new picture of the truck Cleanaway uses for their Wikipedia page (full disclosure: I am an employee of Cleanaway and am paid to monitor the page). The current photo was taken in 2009 and is in a country we no longer operate in. I understand that the image should ideally be under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License. When looking for similar images I have noted that most are either copyrighted or unavailable for use under Wikipedia's requirements.
My question is: If I receive the image through email and would like to upload it, how do I tag and mention that the copyright belongs to the company who has released it under the license instead of me, the uploader? Thanks in advance, and let me know if this is something that I should not be doing, seeing as I do have Conflict of Interest due to my employment. Pce1984 (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Pce1984. Is the image you want to uploaded significantly different from File:Cleanaway 2001 Volvo FM7 Phoenix refuse truck, 25 January 2009.jpg because you could just make an edit request at Talk:Cleanaway or at WP:COIN simply explaining the above and asking them to change the caption? If, however, the company's trucks have significntly changed since 2009, then perhaps the best thing to do would to simply ask someone at the company to take a photo of one of its trucks and then upload it directly to Wikimedia Commons themselves instead of asking you to do so. That would avoid you having to deal with either c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? or c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. The only real issue with such a photo would be whether the company's logo is prominently displayed or the truck has a really distinct paint job. Most vehicle shapes are considered to be too utilitarian to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:VEHICLE on their own; so, it's really only the "packaging" (i.e. the paint job or any other identifying branding) so to speak that might be of a copyright concern. If someone from the compnay takes the photo and then someone who represents the company and has some authority uploads the photo to Commons using the interactive release generator, then both the copyright of the photo and any branding that's not deemed to be de minimis should be covered. Once the image is uploaded, you would just need to request that someone replace the one currently in the article with the new image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)