User talk:Marchjuly/Archives/2022/July

Cigarette box

Hello. We were in a conversation elewhere about my photo of a cigarette box, but I took a Wikibreak for about a month, and now I can't respond to you properly in that conversation 'cause I can't find it any more. Anyway, you asked if my photo was the same box as at https://www.ebay.com/itm/334454539381, and YES, it is the same box (which I bought), but of course my photo is (modest cough) much better. Now, how do I use my photo as an example of the kind of souvenirs that were given to participants in the Veiled Prophet Parade and Ball? Or can I just upload it as is? Thanks so much for your attention to this. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you're referring to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2022/June#Photo of a three-dimensional object. My response is pretty much the same in that it largely depends upon whether the box is in an of itself eligible for copyright protection separate of any copyright attached to any photo taken of it. If the box isn't very ornate and is nothing but a "mere box" which it kind of looks like in the eBay photo, then it could possibly be considered a kind of utility object and not eligible for its own copyright protection per c:COM:CB#Utility objects. For example, a typical car seems to be considered a utility object in most cases because its shape is fairly standard and not considered creative enough to generate its own separate copyright per c:COM:VEHICLE; a customized car or car with a custom paint job, however, might have elements connected with it that go beyond a simple shape and thus it may be considered eligible for copyright protection. How this can be corresponding applied to cigarette boxes most likely depends on how complicated or intricate the box's design is and whether they are any engravings or other creative elements to it that make seem more of an artistic work than a utility object. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC because Commons is likely the best place to upload such a photo since I don't see there being much justification for such a photo being uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content just to show an example of the kind of souvenirs that were given to participants in that particular event. Commons doesn't accept not free content of any type; so, if the opinion over on Commons is that you can't upload a photo of this box because it's eligible for copyright protection separate of your photo, then the same would apply to Wikipedia as well and you wouldn't be able to upload your photo without the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder of the box. Your photo, if much better in quality than the eBay one, may actually make the creative elements (if there are any) of the box standout more and thus be easier to assess; so, perhaps if you can upload it somewhere online (other than Wikipedia or Commons) first, then a Commons volunteer find that helpful in sorting this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy July 4th!

Colman2000 (talk) is wishing you a Happy 4th of July! On this day, we recognize our independence from Great Britain with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, which ultimately paved the way to our freedom. Celebrate this day in many different ways, such as hosting a barbecue, watching baseball games, or even attending a fireworks show! Happy Independence Day, fellow American!  
 

Share this message by adding {{subst:Independence Day}} to a fellow American's talk page.

Colman2000 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Question about logos

Hey. You nominated File:Jeep Élite logo.svg and one other logo uploaded by me for deletion (and I completely agree with that). First question – where is WP:NFC#cite=note-4 supposed to take me? Because it redirects to Wikipedia:Non-free content. Maybe you meant to write WP:NFC#cite_note-4 instead? Second question – does File:Utah Jazz logo (2016).svg also fall under the same treatment? Because the logo is no longer used in the infobox and has been moved to Utah Jazz#Logos and uniforms. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

There was a typo in the link. It should've been WP:NFC#cite_note-4. My apologies for any confusion my typo might've caused. The old Jazz logo might be OK depending upon who you ask and how they interpret cite_note-4 and WP:NFC#CS. There does seem to be some content related to the way the team's branding has evolved over the years; how much of that is reliably sourced and how much is WP:OR or WP:SYN might require a more thorough assessment of that section. Try imagining that section without the logo. If the logo can be omitted without a significant loss in understanding, then the justification for its non-free use is probably fairly weak. On the other hand, if omitting the logo makes what's written much harder to understand, then perhaps it's needed. WP:NFCC#8 is probably the most subjective of all the WP:NFCCP, and it's the one which usually ends up being discussed at WP:FFD. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Threshold of Originality

Hello! Would you please be able to explain what you were referring to in your edit summary here? I reviewed COM:TOO US and was unable what you are talking about. In fact, parts of the page seemed to contradict the idea that simple foreign text logos are in the public domain in their source country ("the U.S. Copyright Office found the Vodafone speechmark (shaded version) ineligible for copyright protection. It cannot, however, be uploaded to Commons because it's a UK logo"). Thanks! HouseBlaster^talk 20:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I was working under the assumption that file is a logo for a US radio station. Is the article wrong? Text only logos aren't generally considered eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, and Commons requires files be acceptably licensed in both the US and their country of origin/first publication, which in this case is also the US. FWIW, I also asked an administrator experienced in non-free use about this at User talk:Hammersoft#Former radio station logo questions and he seemed to also feel that the logo was also too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law. Even if it isn't a US logo, it could still probably be relicensed at {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use on Wikipedia. TOOs can vary quite a bit from country to country and the UK's TOO is much lower than the US's which is why Commons doesn't allow the Vodefone logo, but it does allow those logos shown at c:Com:TOO United States. Of course, neither I nor Hammersoft are experts per se, and if you disagree with our assessments and feel the file needs to be non-free, then you can revert the change. You're also welcome to seek additional input at WP:MCQ, WT:NFCC or WP:FFD. However, this type of non-free use of former logos is pretty much not allowed per WP:NFC#cite_note-4; so, it seems unlikely that a consensus will be established in favor of the file current use and that the file will end up being deleted if it needs to be treated as non-free if its non-free issues aren't addressed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I understand what confused me—I took "out of the US" to mean "outside of the US". I thought your comment was essentially saying that all logos from outside of the US are subject to the copyright rules of the US within the source country. Thank you for your patience with me; moving the file to Commons now! HouseBlaster^talk 02:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Flag icons in the "2022 monkeypox outbreak in Europe" page

Hey, Marchjuly.

Page I'm talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_monkeypox_outbreak_in_Europe

I'm not here to do any harm. What I want to know is, why did you delete the flag icons in the headings in "Cases transited through Europe"? I know it might look weird but flag icons are important to recognize a country. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. I wont revert it if you don't want me to. I'm new so.. I don't know. Anyway, have a great day over there in Japan.

Sincerely, Redstilledits

Redstilledits (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Redstilledits. As I sort of explained in the edit summary I left when I removed those icons, adding images, icons, citations and links aren't allowed to be used in section headings per MOS:HEAD and MOS:ACCIM because such things can create MOS:ACCESS issues for certain Wikipedia readers (particularly visually impaired users or user using certain types of mobile devices). There's also very little encyclopedic value in doing so since most readers will know the name of a country, but they may not know the flag of a country. If you want to add a link to the country in the body of each section you may do so; though, such a thing might be considered a case of WP:OVERLINK since links to country names are generally not added to bodies of articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Help with HomeLight article?

Hi there. I noticed that you seem to be pretty actively involved with the Business WikiProject, so I was wondering if you might be willing to take a look at some suggestions that were proposed back in May for the HomeLight article. (I’d love to make edits myself, but I can’t because I’m a HomeLight employee and therefore have a COI.) Thanks very much. Ilovecats9669 (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I may have posted a message on that WikiProject's talk page a few times, but I'm not a member or otherwise involved with it. If you've made an edit reuest that hasn't yet been responded to, you could try moving to the next step in the process as explained in WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement by seeking assistance at WP:COIN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Subject

Suggestion 1.47.132.106 (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

About what? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)