Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/August

Category:FAL files

I was looking at some of the images in this category and I am wondering if their licensing is correct. I'll admit that I'm not too familiar with how a Free Art License, but it seems a little strange that images such as File:Mgm channel nl.png, File:Nativ-logo.jpg, File:MWHOFBLOCK.jpg or File:Petros Chadjopoulos photo.jpg can just be tagged as FAL without any kind of verification. The Wikipedia article about FAL states it is "copyleft license that grants the right to freely copy, distribute, and transform creative works without the author's explicit permission". If this is true, then that would seem to pretty much make anything currently licensed as non-free content eligible for conversion to FAL, wouldn't it? Are there specific criteria which need to be met for a FAL license to be considered appropriate? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: With the exception of the reference to a copyleft clause, the rest of the text between the quote marks seems basically a short description of a free license. Once the copyright owner has explicitly offered the work under the free license, then that work can be reused by anybody under the terms of that license, without having to ask further permission. Of course, the free license must have been offered by the copyright owner in the first place. It does not mean that anybody can offer without authorization a free license on someone else's work. Like for any license accepted on Wikimedia, it must be verifiable that the copyright owner offered that license for that work. If there is no evidence that a work was licensed by its copyright owner, it can be nominated for deletion. That is true for any file with any license tag. A higher proportion of copyright violations with a FAL tag might still be found because, for some time some years ago, someone had programmed an upload tool to default to placing a FAL tag on files for which uploaders did not provide a valid license. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Asclepias. The default tagging by a bot may explain quite a lot. Do any of the files in the category seem questionable to you? Just curious. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

They could be reviewed one by one if someone has the motivation and patience to do it. Many description pages are poorly documented. In some cases, the connection, if any, between the uploader and the copyright owner is not specified and there is no evidence of permission. In a few cases, the license tag apparently has no basis but the image could be in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Sothebys Logo.svg

Does this need to be licensed as {{Non-free logo}}? It's simple text, so it should be fine as {{PD-logo}}, shouldn't it? Sotheby's was founded in the UK, but its headquarters is in the US, so at the very least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} should be OK if c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom is an issue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it is composed of totally unmodified text, so in that case, not per this deletion of British logos, then you should be ok to tag it {{PD-textlogo}} and move to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this ww2censor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

copyright of a photo

File:Prof Peter Klinken 3.jpg Hi, On August 1st I received a message from ShakespeareFan00 about the copyright of a photo of Professor Peter Klinken on his Wikipedia page. The author of the photo was not cited and the message said that the JPG file would be removed on Tuesday 8 August if the person who took the photo is not credited. I have since added the name of that person (Jody D'Arcy) as author of the JPG file under Summary. The name now appears under the photo when I clicked on it. Is there anything else that needs to be done in terms of copyright? The author has sent an email confirming that she is happy for the photo to be used on the Wikipedia page. Thank you, Adam Osseiran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Osseiran (talk • contribs) 09:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adam Osseiran: It is not that the author is not credited but that we don't have any verification of their permission because just adding their name does not verify anything. If Jody D'Arcy, now as the named author, then presumably she is the copyright holder and any use of this image requires the permission of the copyright holder to be verified by them following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. I sorry to tell you that without the copyright holder's permission the image will be deleted. If the author has already initiated an email verification, then she should have received a reply with a ticket number that can be applied to the photo as well as this template {{OTRS pending}}. That tries to avoid a deletion before the verification process has been approved. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Alan Shepard statue.jpg

This file is tagged with {{OTRS permission}}, but it is also tagged with {{Non-free 3D art}}. Assuming that the non-free license is needed for the underlying statue, the photo then would need it's own copyright license, wouldn't it? Moreover, if the file is not completely free (both photo and statue), then its non-free use in United States Astronaut Hall of Fame#Gallery seems to fail WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFG). -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

That is best asked at WP:OTRSN, to see which thing the permission statement applies to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion Jo-Jo Eumerus. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

File:ETC (Philippine TV channel) logo 2016.jpg

I'm pretty sure that this does not need to be treated as non-free content at least not locally on Wikipedia. The same logo has been uploaded to Commons as c:File:ETC (Philippine TV channel) logo 2016.svg.jpg, but the claim of "own work" is obviously a mistake. I asked about the Commons version at c:COM:VP/C#Jezyl Galarpe ‎uploads and there will be no need for the Wikipedia version if Commons can keep its version. IS ther any possible reason why this needs to be treated as non-free on Wikipedia? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

File:DFBTriangles.svg

This former logo of the German Football Association is licensed as non-free content; it was, however, replaced by File:Deutscher Fußball-Bund logo.svg, which is licensd as "PD-textlogo" on Commons. If the latest version of the logo is too simple for copyright protection, then the previous version should also be too simple since it is basically the same except for some minor differences in non-copyrightable elements. The same could also probably be said for File:German Football Association logo (1926).svg and File:German Football Association logo (1995).svg because the triangle imagery "DFB" in these is also pretty much the same as in the aforementioned Commons file. Is there a reason that all the non-free files need to remain non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

photograph

Can I upload a photograph from a website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KiranVamseeBakasam (talk • contribs) 08:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@KiranVamseeBakasam: in the vast majority of instances no. You must have evidence it is freely licensed, so please provide an example and we will be happy to check it out for you. ww2censor (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

From the email that I got, what exactly are the license of the images by this government corporation?

I wanted to use images by MRTMalaysia's website and social media pages for Wikipedia articles relating to the Malaysian MRT line and stations, so I decided to email them (MRT Corp), asking what license do they hold over their images they post on their website and social media platforms. They replied this:

(start) Hi Fazley,

First and foremost, thank you for your interest in the MRT Project.

MRT Corp does not have any copyright over our photos as we do not intend to make a profit from it. After all, it is a project for the benefit of the rakyat. However, we do appreciate credit over the photos that are being used.

That being said, if you are searching the photos from online sources, we would not be sure if the photos you select are from us. We would advise you to source the photos from our website, www.mymrt.com.my.

Cheers. (end)

So they say that they do not have any copyright over their images, but they don't state exactly what the license over their images are. I would assume that their images would be in the Public Domain considering MRT Corp IS owned by the Ministry of Finance in Malaysia, and therefore is part of a government institution, but I don't want to take the risk here, so I'm going to ask here.

The question is: From the email that I got, what exactly are the license of the images by this government corporation? Or should I ask them again to clarify on the license given to the images they post?

Here's the image as proof. Blanked out some names for privacy. Hope ya'll could answer!

Fazley01 (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fazley01: Their email is contradictory, from what I see, every page on their website has a copyright notice at the bottom and according to c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Malaysia such government works are copyright for 50 years. Making profit really has nothing to do with copyright so I suspect the person who answered your request does not understand copyright. You may want to consider the Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials page once you make a selection of images you want and get them to follow the specified procedure. What we really need is a firm statement that all, or specific, images are in the public domain (or released under a free license we accept). To that end, unless they upload those images to a special page for you with a free license statement or make a statement beside the images you are interested in, they would really have to remove the copyright statement from their website and replace it with another copyright or create a copyright statement page that specifies their photo policy more clearly, though you may also be interested in maps or other illustrations. I suggest you politely tell them the images you are interested in but point out their website copyright statement and ask for clarity but right now this is not good enough. ww2censor (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

German political party logos

File:Feministische Partei Logo.jpg and File:Büso parteilogo.jpg were uploaded as {{Non-free logo}}. They are missing non-free use rationales so they can be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F6. If these need to be non-free, then it is likely that a non-free use rationale can be written for use in the stand-alone article of each party (Feminist Party of Germany and Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität), but non-free use would not be allowed in List of political parties in Germany per WP:NFLISTS or User:Zorono Ornitorrico/edit german political parties per WP:NFCC#9. The question is whether these need to be non-free or whether these can be relicensed as {{PD-logo}} or at the very least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Public domain for File:YouTube_Red.svg

This logo is identical to File:YouTube_Logo.svg except it has the word 'Red' to the right of it. File:YouTube_Logo.svg qualifies for PD-textlogo, so shouldn't File:YouTube_Red.svg also?

File:YouTube_Logo.svg vs File:YouTube_Red.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by MennasDosbin (talk • contribs) 07:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@MennasDosbin: I agree and don't see why they should not be licenced the same. It's a US company so the threshold of originality is relatively low. There is no essential difference in the type of logo these two are. BTW, please sign your posts by adding four tildes, like this ~~~~ to the bottom of all talk pages and project pages such as this one but not to articles. ww2censor (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Football jumpers

Do File:Sturt Double Blues Jumper.svg, File:Launceston Blues Jumper.svg, File:Subiaco Lions Jumper.svg, File:St Marys Saints Jumper.svg need to be licensed as non-free content or are they simple enough for some form of public domain. If they need to be licensed as non-free, then it's likely the way they are being used fails WP:NFLISTS. The jumper shape itself is ultilitarian and the coloring cannot be copyrighted, so it depends upon whether the script-lettering is seubject to copyright. If these were teams originating in the US, I'd say no. I am not sure about Australia though since the c:COM:TOO#Australia seems to say no. Maybe a possible solution is to relicense them as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Careeba Company Logo.png

Not sure if this needs to be treated as non-free, even with respect to c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom. I think this should be OK for at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} if Commons can't accept it. Any reason why this needs to be free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Painting query

Hi all - I have an image which I want to upload, but it is on the edge of a couple of copyright categories and I just want to make sure I'm going to use the right one. New Zealand artist J. S. Parker died the other day. I was the writer of the catalogue notes for his last exhibition (which is still running). As part of my research, I took photos of all of the paintings which were to be in that exhibition, one of which I would like to add to the article on Parker (I have verbal permission from the gallery to do so). I know that my photographs can generally be released as CC or GFDL onto Wikimedia, but I'm not sure what the status of a photograph of someone else's artwork would be. If necessary I could reduce the size of the artwork and claim it as fair use in the article, but if it's possible to upload it under a broader copyright I'd prefer to do so. Grutness...wha? 14:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Photographs of someone else's artwork are derivative works of that artwork and subject to its copyright. If Mr. Parker died a few days ago the copyright is almost certainly still in force, so you'd need to fall back to non-free use unless a heir of his is willing to grant a free license to the artwork. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

OK - I'll upload a small version as single use fair-use. Thanks. Grutness...wha? 15:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I may has lolcat?

I used to have this image (which I drew) on my userpage. While I was on hiatus from Wikipedia, it was deleted as a derivative work based on a copyrighted image, which I now see was indeed a copyright problem, because my drawing looks too much like the copyrighted source it's parodying. To replace that image, I would like to use this image from Commons with the caption "I may has grammar?" added. But it was suggested to me that I should ask for opinions here before uploading such a replacement. Thanks in advance for your advice. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to upload Commons images to enWikipedia; just add [[File:%D0%A4%D1%83%D0%BD%D1%82.JPG]] to your userpage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response, Jo-Jo Eumerus, but I think you missed that I was going to modify the image by adding a caption to the image itself (not just write the caption above or below the image). Come to think of it, I'm not sure whether I should upload the captioned image to WP or Commons, so if you know the answer to that one, I'd appreciate your expertise. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 19:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

GrammarFascist you can modify any freely licensed images found on the commons but you must abide by the license of the original, i.e.; attribute the work and give it the same license as the original; read the original copyright tag. Just make the changes and upload to the commons. If you need some help filling in the {{information}} template just ask. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

EU document copyright

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask, if not please move to there. One of my edits was recently flagged as a possible copyvio. The text was taken from europa.eu, the EU's office document repository. The copyright statement is here [1]. Is this copyright permissive enough to allow text to be copied to Wikipedia? LongHairedFop (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

• @LongHairedFop: Unfortunately, I don't think so. While the license does permit commercial and non-commercial uses (commercial is where such things usually fail, but not this case), it does not agree to allow adaptations/derivative works to be created from it. The decision from which the license is descended stipulates "the obligation not to distort the original meaning or message of the documents" is encumbered upon reusers. So, no, I don't think their license is compatible. Close, but not compatible. Other eyes would be useful here though. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi LongHairedFop. This is sort of similar to what was discussed at c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Zwerubae, except that that discussion had to do with images. The source website was placing the following restriction on its content: "subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context". This kind of restriction, however, is too limiting for Commons in that it only allows derivatives/adaption of certain type to created. It seems as if the same can be said for this case as well since as Hammersoft points out the documents can be re-used only in a manner deemed appropriate by the original copyright holder, whereas Wikipedia typically requires that permission be given so that the content can be freely re-used for any purpose with perhaps only attribution being required.

What you might be able to do is re-write/summarize the content in your own words, add that to the article, and then add a supporting iniline citation. Short bits of "quoted text" is even allowed per MOS:QUOTE as long as you provide a supporting citation. Just make sure, you don't WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE or use too much of the copyright text. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I was thinking that I might need to paraphrase the passage (it's for Visa_policy_of_the_Schengen_Area#ETIAS). I'll do that when time allows. LongHairedFop (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello LongHairedFop,

This page, "Wikipedia:Media copyright questions", is about media, so, technically it is not the place to ask questions about text, because the policies and the terms of use of Wikimedia about the two types of contents are different (for example, media may have more diverse licenses, whereas texts must be compatible with the general license of Wikipedia). Places for questions about texts might be Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Help desk. But, as you can see, although texts fall outside the scope of "Wikipedia:Media copyright questions", that does not necessarily stop users from trying to help and offer suggestions here also.

Regarding your question, I would say yes, the actual license looks permissive enough. It requires only to mention the source. The Commission's enabling policy (to which Hammersoft refers, above) states that the licenses that may be issued for the Commision's documents must be either without restrictions or, if they have restrictions, those can be chosen only from a limited set of restrictions. That policy does not state that all those conditions must be included in all licenses to all documents. Quite the opposite. It states that, in the specific cases, the licenses may include one or several of those conditions. What we must look for is the actual license issued for the document that you want to use. In the case of the license for the documents on EUR-Lex, apparently they have chosen to include only the condition about the mention of the source. They have not chosen to include the condition about non-distortion.

Still, that being said, the advice given above is good advice. A document can be summarized, with reference links to the source, unless of course if it's useful to quote it.

One difficulty when copying documents from external sources is to ensure that the required attribution will be preserved. If you do conclude that the license is permissive enough and you do copy parts of the document into the Wikipedia article, there are precautions to take to place the attribution. The Template:Free-content attribution might help. Also, even if the requirement is only to mention the source ("© European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/, 1998-2017"), it might be good to also add that they define the author of this document as "Author: European Commission, Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs".

-- Asclepias (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

How can we get copyrights for youtube released by my friends or by my relatives

I am just asking this question without having a need to upload any files,videos but I am just asking this question to clarify my doubts.I also observed when I go on to save a YouTube as citation for trialing purposes in my Sandbox,they provide a message saying that this video is blacklisted.If the questions that I asked were wrong,I will apologies for my errors.Abishe (talk)`

If you ever need to upload such files to Wikimedia Commons you would need to ask friends to change standard Youtube license to Creative Commons one allowing commercial use and modification. There are also some technical steps to follow, you may read more at c:Commons:YouTube files. As to the blacklist, do not use short URLS (youtu.be), instead use the full ones (youtube.com). --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 07:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:CD Primeiro de Agosto (logo).png

Does this need to be licensed as {{Non-free logo}}? All of the elements seem to be utilitarian and ineligible for copyright, so any combination of them should also be {{PD-logo}}, shouldn't it? I'm not sure about the WP:TOO of Angola (the country of origin), but at the very least this seems to be OK as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Database copyright

I have a possible offer of a tiny database (a continually-updated table which drugs are affected and how, for the Grapefruit-drug interactions article). The formatting will be modified. Can you tell me what the procedure for ensuring that this is clearly not copyvio? What permissions, if any, would I need to ask the owners of the database to give? Does Wikimedia even use ODbLs? HLHJ (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

File:ZipIt-software-icon.png

I added this icon to the article about the ZipIt software. ZipIt was distributed as shareware on the Mac platform and the icon was extracted from a copy of ZipIt, version 1.3.5. Of particular note, however, is that the ZipIt icon appears to be derived from the default Macintosh application icon that was used prior to Mac OS X. This default application icon featured a tilted document page with a hand at the right side. Images of this default icon are shown in Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines from Apple Computer, Inc., as figure 8-30 on page 246. On the same page, the guidelines for developers specify that Macintosh application icons should ideally be of the same shape as the default application icon and that developers can add graphical elements to the application icon in order to customize it. From this, it seems that it is permissible for the ZipIt icon to be derived from the default Macintosh application icon (that was likely authored by Apple), though I am not totally sure. (If the ZipIt icon is itself an unauthorized derivative work of an existing icon, then it may not be permissible for the ZipIt icon to be used on Wikpedia in the context of the ZipIt article.) --Elegie (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Begaoz uploaded images last several weeks. About 40 images.

All images uploaded are 100% owned by me, photographed by me. I have stated this point twice upon uploading - first by ticking a box and later in the description. On occasions a picture has been previously used in one of my 30 blogs. I have tried to avoid this as your editors assume the blog picture belongs to someone else. Yesterday this happened with a JILL ROBB picture which resulted in all my recent work being deleted by an editor in Germany.

My gift so far to Wikipedia would amount to about US$25,000 in photo values at a minimum.

Please accept this declaration that all material that has been uploaded by Begaoz has permission to be used.

Initially your editors were thanking me with encouragement to keep uploading more material. Then one bright spark assumes everything has been a copyright infringement. Not a good policy.

In your following text meaningless: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license".

Begaoz (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Begaoz. Are you files being deleted from Wikiepdia or Wikimedia Commons? Files which are used in Wikipedia articles are often uploaded to Commons. A link to file's page is then added to the article, so when a file is deleted from Commons the link remains but it turns into red link because the file's page no longer exists. Although Commons and Wikipedia are both WMF websites and there are lots of similarities between the two, each does have its own seperate policies and guidelines. So, if your files were deleted from Commons, the best thing to do would be to figure who was the deleting Commons admin and ask them what the problem was. That person should be able to tell you what you will need to do to get the files undeleted. Check you Commons user talk page because that where any deletion notifications woyld have been posted.

You might also want to take a look at c:COM:OTRS because it contains some general information on how to provide verification that you hold the copyright on any files you upload. One thing that many people do not understand is that deleted files are not really gone forever; they are only hidden from public view and can be "undeleted" once any issues with the file have been resolved. So, there's no need to re-upload the file's again, especially since re-uploads are often deleted for the same reasons as the previous upload. It's best to discuss things with the deleting admin and then figure out how to proceed from there. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

They are being deleted from Commons. The user is blocked there for uploading unfree files after warnings. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying JJMC89. Well, there you have it Begaoz. Your files were deleted from Commons, so you need to resolve the matter there. Your Commons account has been blocked for a week so you can just wait until the block runs out and then try and discuss things, or add a post on your Commons user talk page addressed to c:User talk:Steinsplitter, the adminsitrator who blocked you, and ask what you need to do from here on to avoid having the same problem. Steinsplitter is also an OTRS volunteer, so he/she will be able to explain exactly what you need to do to have the licensing of the files you uploaded verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a question - an objection

A couple of times recently, I've had messages left on my talk page challenging non-free use images I've added. Both have been illustrations of the work of a living artist. As you will no doubt be aware, copyright lasts for 75 years from the death of the creator of the work, so if we are to illustrate the work of a living artist, we have no choice but to use copyrighted work. So long as a rationale is provided and the other criteria are met, what's the problem?

I am expected to provide an objection to the challenge, but the objection will only consist of a restatement of the non-free use rationale. The law hasn't changed. Or else I'm expected to provide a replacement! I mean, come on. If you're aware that a free alternative is available, there's nothing stopping you doing the work yourself. If you're not aware that a free alternative is available, your challenge is lazy and entirely speculative. Do the work yourself, don't yank my chain because I've shown willing before. If the existing image complies with policy and you don't have a better one, then leave it alone - and leave me alone. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

These notices are usually generated automatically IIRC and are a courtesy as part of NFCC policing. It isn't anyone's responsibility to replace an inappropriate Non-free image with anything if the rationale isn't good enough, but the notice gives you an opportunity to clarify or replace the image yourself. If someone has made a mistake it might be frustrating to have to point that out, but better than the mistake leading directly to a deletion process! In regard to the one from today - the NFCC notice seems to have a point. The way that the image is named and being used in the article infobox creates the casual impression it is a portrait of the artist but it is not a portrait of the artist but a detail from one of his paintings. It does not appear to actually be illustrative of the work of the artist within the context of the article because that painting or anything about his style or the image is not discussed within the article. Since the artist is still alive an actual free image of him for the infobox could be created. I have removed it from the article since its current usage isn't appropriateAlasdairEdits (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Nicknack009, I presume you are referring to this image File:NeilShawcross.jpg that was in the artist Neil Shawcross's article. It would have been quite useful had you provided links to these, so if it is about something else please give us the links. Anyway, your objection is not exactly a new one but in general we do not allow copyright images of works by artists in their biographic articles only in articles about the works themselves, such as Head VI by Francis Bacon which is included in his biographic article. The exception is when there is some sourced critical commentary discussing the artists style which justifies its use as in Francis Bacon's article. Lack of critical commentary is a frequent stumbling block for such use of non-free images which is the case in Neil Shawcross's article. As you appear to be aware, all non-free images must comply with all 10 non-free policy guidelines; this one being WP:NFCC#8. You may want to also review WP:NFCI #6. You are correct that you cannot replace a copyright image of an artist's work with a non-free one, though there are some exceptions, such as when the country where the work is located may have a lenient 2D policy but that's not often the case. Unfortunately complaining that other editors should do the work for you won't help your case and likely causes annoyance on all sides. You may not realise that because you are the uploader, the onus is on you to ensure the images comply with the policy, so actually you are the one who needs to fix it. So if you get a notice that tells you there is a problem with one of your uploaded images, maybe the thing to do is try to fix it. And as already has been pointed out a portrait for use in the infobox can be made because the artist is still alive. Have you tried to reach out to some wikipedian's in Northern Ireland where it appears the artist lives, or make contact with the artist to obtain a freely licensed portrait. Anyway good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not "complaining that other editors should do the work for [me]", quite the opposite. I am complaining that other editors are expecting me to do their work for them - which you are continuing to do. The onus is on me to ensure the image complies with policy? Well, I did. The objection raised is that a free use image might be available, which is speculative. As I said, if you know of a free use alternative, do the fucking work yourself, don't yank the chain of an editor who has made the effort in the past.

But I'm clearly wasting my breath. It seems to me obvious that, in an article about an artist, and example of their work is far more informative than a photo of the artist, their work being the thing that makes them of interest - and in the case of a visual artist an example image is more informative than any discussion, no matter how well sourced. And it is obviously absurd to only refer to an artist's work in an article about an individual work, especially in the case of a painter. This interpretation of policy makes the encyclopedia worse. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the relevant part of the notice posted on the file's page in this case is where it says: "If the file is being used as an example of the artist's particular style then it should be moved from the infobox to where the relevant article content/critical commentary is so that the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident." So, if you move the illustration out of the infobox and if you can add some content to the article, with sources, that should be good. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No. If you want to improve the article, improve the article. Stop expecting other editors to do your work for you. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Our non-free policy puts the onus on the uploader that they have made the effort to find if there is free replacement, to provide the proper rationales, and otherwise make sure all parts of NFCC policy have been met. We can't just let people upload non-free and assume others will deal with fixing it, as that will lead to frivolous uses of non-free well before anyone else will get to fixing them. --MASEM (t) 23:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded that file TEN YEARS AGO, and I did my best to ensure it complied with policy at the time. So don't you dare accuse me of "upload[ing] non-free and assum[ing] others will deal with fixing it". --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Photo

I am trying to update the Bio photo of James Maslow. he requested, on twitter, that someone do this because the one on his page is 7 years old and he has changed a great deal. I have a photo from his official website. how do I do this? http://www.jamesmaslow.com/Winterschild11 (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Winterschild11: Any updated image must be freely licensed, so you can't just upload an image from his website unless that image clearly shows it has a license we accept, such as {{cc-by-4.0}}, {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}. We do not accept images that have commercial or derivative restrictions which means that anyone can use it for anything. Also it is the copyright holder who must give their permission unless the copyright is owned by the subject by way of having acquired the copyright in a contract. In fact the old image page was vandalised but I restored it and you will notice the image has an OTRS ticket number which is one way to verify the permission, otherwise James Maslow could arrange for the current image he would like to be placed on a separate webpage (unlinked to the rest of their site if desired) with the appropriate copyright statement as mentioned above. It would then be uploaded to the commons and not here. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you a fan or do you work for him in anyway ? Aspro (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Swedish national socialist party flag.gif

Since this file appears to be no different from pretty much anything found in c:Category:Swastikas, so I'm not sure why it needs to be licensed as non-free content. Any particular reason why this cannot be converted to {{PD-simple}} or {{PD-logo}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it clearly does not pass threshold of originality and can be converted to a free license tag and perfectly also moved to Wikimedia Commons. --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 08:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Update: File was converted to PD per above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Delphimenu.jpg

This file has a non-free use rationale but it is licensed as {{PD-simple}}. While its true that the individual words themselves may not be eligible for copyright protection, I'm not sure whether the same could be said for this particular arranging of the words (it looks like computer code). Can this be "PD-simple" or should it be {{Non-free software screenshot}} instead? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It is a menu, not a programme code. Besides, while program code is copyrightable usually some ToO is applicable too. In my opinion the FUR template should be changed to Information here as there is no copyrightable image to rationalise usage of. --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 07:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Update: File's licensing was converted to PD, and has since been moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Aradius Group Official Logo.png

I believe this is OK for {{PD-logo}} unless there's something copyrightable about the combination of the red "i" and the silver circle imagery. However, if it needs to be non-free, then it needs to be removed from the draft per WP:NFCC#9. Any reason why this shouldn't be converted to PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Compare with File:Best Western logo.svg, which is the example used in the guideline, certainly a {{PD-logo}} as far as I can tell AlasdairEdits (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Considering the low threshold of originality in the US there is no reason for this to be tagged as non-free with the tag mentioned by AlasdairEdits. ww2censor (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Branwen.jpg

Does this need to be licensed as {{Non-free 2D art}} any longer? The file's page say the painting dates back to 1915 and the painter who painted it died in 1934. c:Category:Christopher Williams contains some other examples of the painter's work, so maybe this one should be licensed the same way. Regardless whether "author's life plus 70 years" or "author's like plus 80 years" is applicable, both are covered and therefore all his paintings seemingly are now public domain, aren't they? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and could be replaced with the linked higher quality image as well per Commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographsAlasdairEdits (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

D Roopa IPS

How to get the image copyright permission from news articles?--Kiranmadhu.e (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Note - the above post is a follow-on to these two posts from my talk page. I directed the editor here so that he might get timelier and more accurate answers. The photos in question were deleted at FFD; I was the nominator. See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 1#File:D Roopa With Her Husband and Children.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 August 1#File:Roopa D Moudgil IPS.jpg. I'm not sure from the posts on my talk page whether the person is claiming to be the photographer, or is simply confused about copyrights and licensing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kiranmadhu.e: From the posts you mention it appears someone else is the photographer of the images your were supplied with. If you actually took the photos, then you could license them freely yourself. The copyright of images, even if they are available in many news articles, does not mean that for our purposes the images have been released under a free license. You must get the copyright holder, who is likely the photographer and not the subject of the images, to verify their permission by following the procedure found at WP:CONSENT. Without verifiable permission we cannot keep such images. Please provide the urls for the pages these images appear on and maybe we can advise you more specifically. ww2censor (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

DAZ studio

Are the images in DAZ studio OK? The software is proprietary. HLHJ (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Photoshop is proprietary but images created with it can be licensed as free software. The elements used in these images are presumably stock to the application and allowed to be used in creations with the program. No issues with uploading GDFL images created with them. AlasdairEdits (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

rongorongo illustrations

I created a new section on Decipherment of rongorongo, which is in dispute for a couple reasons, one of which is all the illustrations I used. These were taken from a scholarly journal on Jstor discussing the theory I was documenting. Here are a couple of examples: [2] [3] They consist of images of glyphs (which are in the public domain) along with captions. The glyphs are also organized in various ways. Since I cropped them from a journal on Jstor, I uploaded them as non-free content under fair use. However, other images of rongorongo are labelled as ineligible for copyright and in the public domain. Was I right to upload my cropped images as fair use, or should they be labelled free works? I probably should've asked this before instead of making a guess, but I might as well clear this up. tia. Bigdan201 (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The only thing that could possibly be copyrighted is the caption texts, though I doubt it. However, I would just get rid of the captions - they are going to be confusing in the context of an article to have the text and figure references from a journal article there. I would crop the images to exclude the captions and reupload them as public domain - rewriting your own captions to fit the article you are working on. AlasdairEdits (talk) 09:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! This definitely helps. Reuploading as public domain will prevent controversy with editors concerned about NFCC. One more if you don't mind -- what about this [4] image? It's the only one with significant illustration alongside public domain material. Bigdan201 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

you get all the detail that you need at the preview size which is under 100000. I would be conservative and just say reupload as NFCC at a smaller size. Use is unproblematic if you do that AlasdairEdits (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks again for your assistance in this matter. Bigdan201 (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)