Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/May

File:Railtime.jpg

On figure File:Railtime.jpg a request template for size reduction has been placed. I cannot grasp why this fair use figure would be objectionable for copyright reasons. It is only part of one page of an 800 page document, being a 25-year old railway timetable where the station names are abreviated beyond recognition. It does not in any way replace the original work.

On the other hand it eminently shows the use of a very specific aspect of the 24-hour time system. Making the image smaller will likely hinder legibility.−Woodstone (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the size of the file, this seems to fail both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. Why does this particular image need to be seen for the reader to understand that some train schedules list times in such a way? Nothing unique about this. I can go to my local train station and find the same thing in one of the schedules. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This image shows the use of both times 00:00 and 24:00 in the same table. For criterium 1 this needs to be an example from the real world, not a constructed display. For criterium 6, I doubt very much you would find this in your local station's displayed table. This is a little understood element of the 24-hour clock. −Woodstone (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sitting on the train right now as I type this. The station where I got on this JR train has pocket schedules and wall schedules that show all the times the trains on my line arrive and depart from 0:00 to 23:59. There are also schedule books which anyone can buy which show the schedules for all the train lines in the country using basically the same tables as shown in this file. It's seems to be a quite standard format. You are using WP:TEXTASIMAGES and I'm not sure why. The reader does not need to see this particular file to understand the sentence "Similarly, some railway timetables show 00:00 as departure time and 24:00 as arrival time." -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

In the beginning while developing the article 24-hour clock there was a lot of opposition to mentioning the time 24:00. People were convinced this particular time designation, as opposed to 00:00, was never used in practice. And also now as you say, the schedule you mention does not show 24:00 as a time. In order to make crystal clear that the appearance of 24:00 is not just a theoretical possibility, but is used in real life, this image was added (especially since it has both 00:00 and 24:00 on the same page). The image does not compete in any way with publications issued by its original creator and is valuable for the 24-hour article. Earlier similar challenges have resulted in 'keep'.−Woodstone (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Being unique is not really a justification for non-free use and replaceable fair use does not mean "replaced by a freely licensed image"; text is considered a free equivalent to a non-free image as well per WP:FREER. I'm not sure where any previous discussion about this took place before, but it does not appear to have been at either WP:NFCR or WP:FFD, where non-free use of files is discussed. I think this should be discussed further and that FFD is a better place for that than MCQ, so I will nominate the file for discussion. This should help determine whether non-free use in not only jusified, but also whether the file needs to be reduced if it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter. These most certainly are replaceable (and replaced) by a text explanation, so they need to be removed, which I'll shortly do. You could, of course, cite something as a reference if it illustrates your point. That, not taking and uploading a photo of a nonfree source, is the method of using a source to back up a fact. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Woodstone, for images that are merely text, you're right that downscaling is not a good idea. Since it's the text itself that's copyrighted, not the graphical representation of the text, the size of the image is irrelevant, and all that matters is the length of the text itself. If it were appropriate to use this piece of text at a small scale, it also would be appropriate to use the same piece of text at any other resolution. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Photo with limited permission

A 1987 photo of a British band has a "permission to reproduce limited to editorial uses in newspapers and other regularly published periodicals and television news programing." In today's terms would this qualify for upload on English Wikipedia? Yarikata (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Short answer NO. Copyrighted images can be used for editorial purposes but on Wikipedia we need free images. All you have to do is email the Group and ask them to have the photographer of their most favorite image to email in an OTRS giving 'his' permission as the copyright holder. Aspro (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Polysports Complex Logo.jpg

Anyone have any suggestions about what to do with File:Polysports Complex Logo.jpg? It was tagged with {{ir-Philippines government}}, but that was removed by Exec8 with this edit. No source is provided for the file, but "ir-Phillipines government" would mean that the file is non-free content and that it should have had a non-free use rationale. If the photo, however, was taken by the uploader than it's possible this could be freely licensed as some form of "own work" using one of the templates in Category:Creative Commons copyright templates or {{PD-self}}. The question then would be whether the sign iself is protected by copyright per c:COM:FOP#Philippines. Also, I should point out the file's uploader has been indefinitely blocked and was using socks both on Wikipedia and Commons for block invasion; moreover, the socking included uploading copyvios. So, if the image can be saved some way, then fine. I'm just not sure whether it can or the best way to do that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The original logo would be public domain due to simplicity. But it is unlikely that the uploader took this picture. Adding a fair use rationale would not make it good, because you could easily replace the image. I would recommend it is deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

License

Which licenses are recommended for:

• My own images?
• Image copies from my colection?
• My image from journals and museum's colections?

Yahadzija (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you want to donate them here? Images will have copyright from whoever made them. So just because you own one, does not necessarily mean that you own the copyright. Copyright will be granted in writing, if it transferred ownership to you. By "my image" do you mean photos of you? Copyright is held by the photographer, painter, and not you. So you can donate images that you made. You can use CC-BY-SA-3.0, and then people have to credit you when the picture is used. If you don't care for any attribution but want to make it as easy to use as possible, you can use CC-zero to release all rights. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Image owner copyright type

What is the best licence for somebody who wants Wikipedia to use their image, but doesn't want anybody else to use it. They make money from the images. He does not want to offer it as a free image, under a creative commons licence, and fair use would crush the image size. scope_creep (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

None, because there is no third way other than "fair use" and "free use". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I figured that. It is a shame we don't have a third way. I know a fair number of folk who are looking to put images only on Wikipedia. I guess it needs backed up by law. Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. scope_creep (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a question of law.

Conceptually, when Wikipedia was created, the creators could have made the decision that they wanted to create an encyclopedia that anyone could read but not reproduce (without permission). That wasn't the decision. Instead the third of the five pillars is that "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute".

Allowing images to be used in Wikipedia in Wikipedia only would be contrary to our own rules and has nothing to do with the law.

As an aside, this is a common request — common enough that I created a canned response in OTRS to let people know that Wikipedia only licenses are not permitted.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Real time Italy.png

File:Real time Italy.png seems simple enough for {{PD-logo}} based upon WP:TOO of the US. Is there any reason bsed upon the TOO of Italy that this needs to be licensed as non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Wanted poster

A state law enforcement agency published a wanted poster, which was reproduced in several newspapers. Can a low quality image of the poster be used in Wikipedia? If so, what copyright tag should be used? Comfr (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If the subject is dead but has an article on Wikipedia, and there are no other free images available, (and some other conditions) it may be used under fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If the poster itself is the subject of encyclopaedic commentary in the article, then it may be used under fair user whether the subject is alive or dead. This will need to be significant commentary, not just noting that such a poster was issued. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:cc-by-sa

Template:cc-by-sa, currently a redirect to Template:cc-by-sa-1.0, has been nominated at RfD. The discussion would significantly benefit from the participation of those with knowledge of media copyrights and licensing issues. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Batch tool to nominate multiple images at once?

An odd question for MCQ, but kinda "related" :). Is there a tool to perform batch nominations of several images from one user (both for FFD and/or CSD), similar to the "Perform batch task" on Commons? I just nominated a batch of 4 images manually as described at WP:FFD - the current manual process seems to be overly complicated, and prone to misclicks and other errors. GermanJoe (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@GermanJoe: There is not one that I know of. I've been asking some people I know on IRC that know how to code well if they would be willing to port VFC over from Commons for some time now to no avail. The code can be found here: c:MediaWiki:VisualFileChange.js and would require a complete overhaul since it uses Commons templates and Commons deletion schemes (like DR instead of FFD). If you can think of anyone that might be willing to take on the task please see if they would be up to it. I've been wanting something like VFC on enwiki for a long time and I'm not good enough at JavaScript to do it myself. --Majora (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@Majora:, thanks for the information. Unfortunately I don't know anyone who could code that. Posting at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests might be an option, although that forum has been very quiet lately. There's also User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js (haven't tested it yet) - it seems to focus only on single images, but should contain all basic functions for the deletion processes on en-Wiki (except the batch handling obviously). GermanJoe (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Renewing a copyright you bought

In the 1960s, could you renew copyright (US law) on an item that you'd bought from another party? The Christian Science Church suppressed John V. Dittemore's 1933 book Mary Baker Eddy, the Truth and the Tradition by buying the printing plates and the copyright. I'm wondering if they would have been able to renew copyright in 1961, or if the law allowed renewals only by the original copyright holder. Nyttend backup (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If they bought "all rights", then I think so. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

And in fact, the copyright was renewed in September of 1960, with Gladys Graham Bates listed as the claimant. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding Logo to Article About Television Show

I'm writing an article (Draft:The_Stanley_Dynamic) which is about a television show. I'd like to use the show's logo ([1]) or promotional image ([2]) for the article as the main picture in the infobox. However, both of these have copyright on them (being a logo and the official promo image, after all). I'd like to know if it's possible to use either of them. Thanks! Aamri2 (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Aamri2. Wikipedia does allow non-free content to be uploaded for certain types of use (see WP:NFCI for some examples), but each use is required to satisfy all 10 of the non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#9 which states that non-free content may only be used in the article mainspace; in other words, the use of a non-free file would not be acceptable in a draft, but it might be accepted in an article. So, please follow the instructions in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts and only upload/add the file after your draft has been approved and upgrade to article status.

As for which of the two files would be most appropriate to use, I think the non-free use of the show's logo could be justified relatively easy if it's used as the primary means of identification in the main infobox as explained in WP:TVIMAGE; the other image, in my opinion would be much harder to justify unless you are able to add some sourced critical commentary about it to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Delphimenu.jpg

File is licensed as {{PD-simple}} but it has a non-free use rationale. While I think the individual words themselves cannot be copyrighted, this resembles software code/output of some kind which might be subject to copyright. If this is truly PD, then there's no need for a non-free use rationale; on the other hand, if it's non-free, then it's use might fail WP:NFCC#1 since a freely licensed equivalent such as describing it in text per WP:TEXTASIMAGES seems possible. Anyone have any ideas on how to best resolve this licensing conflict? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Jaeger Kahlen Partner logo.svg

Can File:Jaeger Kahlen Partner logo.svg be converted to {{PD-logo}}? It seems to be nothing more that a simple text logo and I'm almost certain this would be PD if the firm was based out of the US. However, I'm not so sure about China, Italy or Germany, which are the three countries where the firm has offices. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

If this was a .png file then sure this would be public domain, but instead this is a .svg file containing a few hundred numbers that trace out the outline of each character. I see this by using this "url" view-source:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/Jaeger_Kahlen_Partner_logo.svg . Copyright certainly applies to the .svg file, that that this is owned by the organisation. I would suggest that this is replaced by a .png that could be considered public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

figure

Is a Royal Society of CHemistry Figure acceptable to use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTLE4470 grp1 AZ (talk • contribs) 17:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Not normally as copyright would apply. However a simple chemical formula of letters and lines linking it is public domain. We use commons:template:Pd-chem template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Appropriateness of image as non-free content

I'm not very familiar with the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, and wanted to check first before I upload an image. I want to add this image to either Funeral of Martin Luther King Jr. or to R. S. Lewis Funeral Home. Could I get your opinion on whether this photo meets the non-free criteria? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: That's a press image attributed to the Associated Press as AP Photo/Charles Kelly, so unless he died more than 70 years ago, which is impossible, the image is not freely licensed. The only possibility would be it you can find some reliably sourced critical commentary about the image itself that might allow its use under our strict non-free policy and even then, being a commercial image, it would likely fail criteria #2. You would probably be better off trying and find a freely licensed image elsewhere, maybe a US government image of the event is such exists though I am pretty sure editors have looked for an image for this article already. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Thanks very much. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Sunderland Station in 1965.jpg

The image File:Sunderland Station in 1965.jpg is shown as fair use, but it's also licensed {{Ir-Crown-UK}} - UK Crown Copyright is, essentially, publication plus fifty years. There is no source, and it's undated, but the current claim is that the photo was taken in 1965 - which is 51/52 years ago, so the copyright would have expired in 2015. What should be done with this image? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Restore the source and publication information that was provided by the uploader [3] but was removed by another user [4].

2. Format the information into the template "Information".

3. If you are sure that the photograph was under Crown copyright and that it is free:

3.1. Remove the templates "Non-free Crown copyright" and "Non-free fair use".

3.2. Add the template "PD-UKGov" or another suitable template.

3.3. Ask User:Premeditated Chaos to undo her deletion [5].

3.4. Revert the file to the version of 4 February 2007.

3.5. Add the template "Copy to Wikimedia Commons".

-- Asclepias (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Redrose64: I've restored and formatted the source and publication details (i.e. steps 1 and 2 above). I don't have an opinion about whether the copyright has expired or not, so I have left the fair use tags as-is. The source claimed is a booklet published by British Railways North Eastern Region in October 1965. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64, it appears, based on the source, that the copyright expired on 1 January 2016, so I've refined the details to reflect that. Ask an admin to restore the high quality image and then tag it with the template {{move to commons}}. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

All done, thanks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Higher Diploma in Accounting Studies (HDAS)

How can I know about Higher Diploma in Accounting Studies (HDAS)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by May Myat Chal (talk • contribs) 09:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@May Myat Chal: This doesn't sound like a copyright question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobel prize website images Comment

Is it considered fair use to use the images of Nobel prize laureates from the Nobel foundation website? Sometimes those area really good pictures that would not be found in other places. Such as this link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llightex (talk • contribs) 17:31, May 14, 2017 (UTC)

@Llightex:, nope. We can't fair use photos of living people since they are considered replaceable and therefore fail WP:NFCCP #1. --Majora (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you realise there are images of each of these people already on the commons? ww2censor (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Venus Mural.JPG

Can this picture of a 2D-work of art be treated as public domain per c:COM:FOP#United States since it appears to have been installed prior to 1978? The uploader claims to be the photographer and it looks as if they have agreed to freely license the photo. So, the copyright status of the underlying work is the only reason this might have to be treated as non-free. The mural was restored in 1998, but I'm not sure if "restoration" means an existing copyright has been renewed or a new copyright created. If does need to be non-free, then it's non-free use in the artist's article seems a bit questionable, especiall since a stand-alone article for the mural exists. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Uploading new version of non-free media

I am interested in uploading an updated version of a non-free image, a logo for an organization: File:Pittsburgh_Marathon.svg.

My question is: do I need to create an entirely new file (with a new name) and delete the old non-free image from Wikipedia, or can I upload a new version of the same file? If I upload a new version of the same file, will the old version not still be available in the "version" history of the file (meaning that a non-free image without a 'use rationale' will not exist for the previous file)?

Hope this makes sense, thanks for any assistance. --Best, Weatherman1126 (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Weatherman1126: Opinions differ on this, but unless you are talking about minor tweaks to the existing logo, my opinion is that an entirely new filename should be created along with a rationale. (I do see that the currently used logo appears to be used on the current official page so I'm puzzled what might be different.) Unless you are an admin, you won't be able to delete the old one but that will take place semi-automatically.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2017/April#New_logo:_Upload_as_a_new_version_of_the_old_image_or_as_a_separate_image.3F – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Weatherman1126: It looks like the current source website logo has a black background around the DICK'S text instead of green as in the current logo uploaded here, so in that case it seems like rather a minor revision, so I would just overwrite it, though others will no doubt disagree. The current logo will still be available until an admin hides it as being unused but it can always be restored if necessary. Overwriting also keeps the entire history of the non-free logo together in one place. ww2censor (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Thanks, this makes sense, I will go this route. Yes, you are correct the changes are subtle – nonetheless the previous logo is no longer used to identify the organization. --Weatherman1126 (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Information taken from the federal government

Hi! I was wondering, what tag would someone use if they were using content published by the federal government that is in the public domain? I've rarely used material that's fallen into the public domain with my main account, so I haven't really had a reason to remember the proper template. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Shalor (Wiki Ed): Which country's federal government? If you mean the United States, their public domain material should be uploaded to the commons, so other language wikis can use it, and all the copyright tags are listed at c:Commons:Copyright tags#U.S. Government agencies along with other country copyright tags. Which one you use depends on the source. ww2censor (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• LOL, sorry - I completely derped there for a moment! I did mean the United States federal government. The materials I'm thinking of are FEMA documents. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
• Would there be a document/data version of c:Template:PD-USGov-FEMA anywhere? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

{{Department of Homeland Security}} is the closest I could find. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, can I create a template like this if the material falls in the public domain? I'm running into more and more cases where students are using content that falls within the public domain with a particular government agency, but there isn't a template that really covers it, like this report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of the Surgeon General. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Whoops, missed the HHS template. In any case, I did find Template:Include-USGov. If I can't find anything else to fit, can I use this as sort of a plug and play with things released by the US Government that fall within the public domain? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Shalor (Wiki Ed) Because these are public domain templates you should really be dealing with this issue on the commons rather than here but there are several HHS templates, sush as NIH, DCD, etc., at c:Category:PD-USGov license tags. If you can't find one for the OSG, you could ask here: c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of longstanding image without effective notification - how to get it back + fix?

A number of images I uploaded some time ago were apparently speedily deleted without properly notifying me. (I don't log into wikipedia every day, and no-one seemed to think to email me to alert me to it). I have a message on my talk page asking me to add more information that wasn't requested at the time I uploaded it, but I can't seem to do that as the images have been deleted. How do I go about getting the images back so I can add the extra information that's now requested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gagravarr (talk • contribs) 21:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gagravarr: You were duly notified about the images on your talk page as per protocol. We don't email people. If you want to set up emails on talk page messages that option is in your preferences. The notice on your talk page also contains information on how to proceed. You have to read, consent to, fill out, and sent in the WP:CONSENT form to our OTRS team at permissions-enwikimedia.org. --Majora (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Images from a paper supported by an NSF grant

This paper says it was partially funded by the NSF. Does that mean the pictures in it fall under commons:Template:PD-USGov-NSF? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No, PD-USGov only applies to employees of the US government performing their official duties. Merely being funded by it does not make anyone an US government employee or on official duty thereof. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright for images not already on the internet

Hello, I am writing an article about a 20th century Canadian painter named Carle Hessay who died in 1978. I am in contact with the holder of the artist's estate, who owns copyright over all images of his paintings until 2028, and she owns as well as most of the personal photographs of the artist. She has emailed me some photographs of the artist that I might wish to include in the article, but with the exception of two photos, these are not available on the internet. The photographer will be unknown for the majority, if not all, of these photos. If the photographer is unknown, can I send her an email asking for a free license to use a particular photo, if I attach it to the permission email with a description? Thanks. Curiocurio (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Curiocurio: Forwarded permissions are not generally accepted at OTRS because it is really easy to just throw together an email and say it was "forwarded" from the copyright holder. You will probably be asked to have the person contact the volunteer response team directly. It would be better to have them fill out the consent form at c:COM:ET and have them email it in themselves. --Majora (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. My understanding of images of paintings is that I can send a permission email to her, containing URL links to paintings she has posted on the artist's official website. Is that correct? That would be easiest. Or does she have to fill out the consent form at c:COM:ET for those as well? The paintings have individual names, and photographs can be described, so are descriptions adequate, rather than having to also use cumbersome URLs? I'm going to be asking for about twenty images in total. Curiocurio (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Curiocurio: If I understand you correctly, each image has to be explicitly stated but only one form is necessary. You can tweak the form to fit whatever they want to do. They can either attach all the images to the email, place them all on a subpage of a website and state that one URL, etc. If they are already uploaded it would be nice if they could include the file names they were uploaded under so the OTRS team can easily find them. While that last part isn't 100% necessary (OTRS is generally very good at finding what image you are talking about) it would be very nice and would speed things along. --Majora (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

So it's best for OTRS to first upload the images to Wikicommons and then provide those links? That would be my preference as I will want to amend the titles of a few images. Or I can provide links to the copyright holders website. Either way works for me. Thank you. Curiocurio (talk) 01:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Curiocurio: If you do upload first please make sure to add {{OTRS pending}} to the file pages. That way image patrollers at Commons will know that permissions have been sent and you aren't trying to violate copyright. --Majora (talk) 01:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks for all your help Majora. Curiocurio (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Upload logo

Hi,

I want to upload a logo of a software product which comes under free content. Can I upload? or Is there any specification for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavan at sapplica (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pavan at sapplica: - If the logo is copyright, it can only be uploaded under our strict non-free policy and only when there is an article in mainspace for it to be used as indentification of the topic/subject and it may not be used on a draft or sandbox page. Depending on the country of origin, the logo may be too simple to be copyrightable, such as very simple text and shapes, in which case it can be uploaded at any time and preferably to the commons, so other editors can use it. ww2censor (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I think what is being asked is if a software is free and open source or similar, is its logo as well, but I'm not sure. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: I think Paven is actually talking about File:Sentrifugo icon.png. ww2censor (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Land reclamation Thorndon.JPG

Hi, I'm pleased to see I did not upload this file. Is it one of those files which may be uploaded and kept in Wikipedia? I am keen to use it because it illustrates so well something I have been trying to describe. Eddaido (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

As a non-free image it can only be used when it has a fully completed fair-use rationale which it has for the Reclamation of Wellington Harbour article . If you want to use it elsewhere it will have to comply with all 10 non-free policy guidelines requirements as well as having a specific rational for that new use. ww2censor (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Royal Green Jackets Museum

On 21 May two images were deleted from this page by JJMC89 bot. The reason stated was 'WP:NFCC#10c: Non-free use rationale missing for this page.'

The first image is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Green_Jackets#/media/File:Rgjcapbadge.jpg "Due to restrictions detailed in its copyright notice (specifically that its material is freely available only for the purposes of private research and study), Crown Copyright images obtained from the British Army are not considered available under an acceptable free licence. Because of this, a detailed fair use rationale has been added to the image to allow for its continued use on the English-language Wikipedia. However, should you wish to use the image for commercial purposes, you must first obtain explicit permission from the copyright holder." "This work is protected by British Crown copyright. Limitations on its distribution are defined at the original site of publication, and are not altered by its reproduction here. Those terms may include, but may not be limited to, its reproduction being accurate, free of charge in any format or medium, and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. HMSO has explicitly stated in official correspondence that material under Crown Copyright may not be relicensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Thus, this is a non-free license for the purpose of Wikipedia, as modification is not permitted."

Fair use rationale for Royal Green Jackets (and Royal Green Jackets Museum): > The image is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the value of the original photograph or its copyright in any way. > The article in question is about a military regiment, and benefits greatly from an image of its regimental insignia.

The second image is : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Banner#/media/File:British_Army_roadblock_1988.jpg As can be noted in the text, the RGJ were deployed in Northern Ireland as part of Operation Banner - there is a link to this page. There are similar copyright restrictions on the use of this image for Wikipedia.

Fair use rationale for Operation Banner (and Royal Green Jackets Museum) : Purpose of use - To show a British Army roadblock in Operation Banner > The image is being used for informational purposes only, and its use is not believed to detract from the value of the original photograph or its copyright in any way. > The article in question is about a military regiment, and benefits greatly from an image of its regimental operations - similar to the other images at the foot of the page.

Please advise why these two images cannot displayed on the page Royal Green Jackets Museum. Richard Tennant (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Tennant: the use of non-free images is deliberately restrictive to keep as much image use as possible to free images. To comply with the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria all non-free images have to comply with all 10 of the criteria set out at that page. The images were removed by a bot from the article on the RGJ Museum because at this time they both failed to meet WP:NFCC#10c in that the image files do not contain "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". To remedy this you must make out a fair use rationale for each image and add it to the image page. The capbadge shouldn't be too difficult but the checkpoint image might give you more problems when it comes to meeting WP:NFCC#8. Nthep (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Please accept that I am a flintstone-era military historian - I had to check out what a 'bot' is !
You state A.'make out a fair use rationale for each image' and B. 'add it to the image page'
I agree that this would appear to be preferable to bringing in the same images afresh just for use on our museum page
Would you mind pointing me in the right direction on both of these required actions.
The RGJ cap badge is essential, however there are several other images on the pages 'Operation Banner' and 'The Troubles' which do not appear to be so restricted and would probably do - although not so well.
Richard Tennant (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Richard Tennant. Just some general stuff before commenting on image use. You referred to article Royal Green Jackets Museum above as "our museum page". Does this mean you are connected to the museum in a professional way or have been asked to make edits on its behalf. If it does, then I suggest that you take at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for reference. While Wikipedia does not expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, it is something which is highly discouraged and COI editors are generally expected to follow certain guidelines. Also, it might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Promotion. Articles are not owned by anyone in particular and the subjects of articles do not have a particular final say over which information is added and which information is removed. Content, including images, is required to be in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, and a consensus needs to be established via article talk page discussion when there are disagreements. In other words, just because you want an image to the article does not mean that another editor can feel it is not needed. So, if that happens, the best thing to do is to try and resolve things through discussion.

The basic concern about image use has to do with its licensing because how an image is licensed will essentially determine how it may be used on Wikipedia. As Nthep pointed out above, non-free content use is highly restricted on Wikipedia and each use much satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are 10 non-free content use criteria which need to be met, and non-compliance with even a single one means that non-free use is not justified. The way to show compliance is to provide a non-free use rationale which clearly states how these criteria are met. In some cases, this can be fairly straightforward and basically involve just adding relevant information to a template, etc. In other cases, it can be quite tricky and require more thought than simply filling in the blanks. Probably the most subjective and hardest of the criteria to justify is WP:NFCC#8. This is because it requires a really strong contextual connection between article textual content and the non-free image. Generally, this is considered to sourced critical commentary or other content which necessitates that the non-free image be actually seen by the reader for the relevant content to be understood. Simply adding non-free images to galleries or for show like in Royal Green Jackets Museum#Exhibits is typically not allowed because such use tends to be seen as more "decorative" than "contextual". So, adding a non-free use rationale does not automatically mean that non-free use is policy compliant, and if there are any other similar, but freely licensed or public domain images, which can serve the same basic encyclopedic purpose, then Wikipedia encourages us to use them instead per WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Chainer icon red.png

Is this logo original enough for copyright in the US? --George Ho (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

how to remove the tag from image's page

For this media file I have added tag |{{PD-author|Photo by AzerTac . How can I remove the tag "Unspecified source/license for File:BHOS new campus opening.jpg"from the image's page.  ?(Bhos17 (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC))

Bhos17 If you are asking how to remove the "no license" deletion notice on the image page, then you have to provide all the details in the blank {{information}} template I added AND very importantly you must specify under what license the copyright holder is releasing the image to us, which was the main reason that notice was added. As of now, you have not provided any details to allow us to review the copyright status of the image. ww2censor (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonfree book cover on author page

Greetings; I was directed here from the Teahouse with a question about a page I started, Marcia Joanne Bennett. I had a low-res infobox image there including the cover of one of her books ( here's the archive of that), which was recently removed by an editor who said the use was a content violation (link to this from the Teahouse discussion above). Ms. Bennett is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but she's a fairly obscure author, and I doubt that her individual books will ever have their own articles. I felt the image added a worthwhile element. The Teahouse editor suggested that criterion 8 might be relevant: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I believe this to be the case, but am somewhat new to all of this and am hoping to learn what I can from more experienced editors. Thank you! Stevenarntson (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Stevenarntson: A photograph of the book cover would not normally pass the nonfree content guidelines for an article about the author. It would generally be acceptable to have one cover image in an article about the book, but if no article is possible about the book, there's nowhere to put it. The one exception would be if the reliable sources about the author also substantially discuss the book cover; if for example the cover were widely hailed as exceptional or were extremely controversial, and that cover was a substantial part of the author's notability. But including it just to "have it there" in a biography would be replaceable and decorative, and so fail NFCC #1 and #8. Instead, in the biography of the author, we should use a free photo of the author herself, if such is available. If not, articles aren't required to have images at all, so we can wait until one is taken. The editor who told you this is quite correct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: thank you for that additional information--I appreciate it! I'll abide by this. More generally, though, it does seem to me that the article is made less effective by the deletion, and that WP as a whole might benefit by a relaxation of policy here. Are such policies ever re-evaluated? Thanks again, Stevenarntson (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Stevenarntson: Well, first, the WMF has set hard limits for all its projects, as far as using nonfree content. We could never exceed those. The resolution is at [6]. It in fact explicitly uses biographies of living people as an example of where we should not be using nonfree content. ("Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.") So in this case, almost certainly not. That being said, the restrictions on nonfree content are deliberately pretty tight. When we say "the free encyclopedia", we don't just mean "free" as in "you don't pay for it." We also mean "free" as in you're free to copy and reuse it. Every time we use nonfree content, we take away from that part of our mission, so we very deliberately use far less of it than we actually legally could get away with. That's a feature, not a bug. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Thanks again for taking the time to go through all of this. It's very helpful for me--I'm always trying to learn more about the deeps of this place. I hope you are well! Best, Stevenarntson (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Quoting an entire very short poem

Hello, I am writing an article about a 20th century Canadian painter, and a group of poets wrote about his abstract paintings that were published in a book. One of the poems which I'd like to quote in full is a 3 line poem by bill bissett. See my draft quote box in the Legacy section of my draft article in User:Curiocurio/sandbox/Carle Hessay

I can likely get in touch with the poet through the editor of the book the poem was published in. Woulhe poet have to email a consent permission letter to Wikipedia with the text in the letter? The editor thinks he will give informal verbal permission, but is something more formal necessary? Thank you. Curiocurio (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Curiocurio: The page at donating copyrighted materials gives the process for how to do such a copyright release. Do be clear that the author giving permission for "use on Wikipedia" wouldn't be sufficient. The author would need to be willing to grant a release of the work under the CC-BY-SA license, which allows anyone to copy, modify, and reuse the work for any purposes, including commercial purposes, provided they attribute the original author and don't change the license. As of now, however, we do not have such a license, and it would be difficult to justify use of an entire work like that absent it. Therefore, since it's not permitted yet, I've removed the material from your draft. If we can get a confirmed release, it's of course fine to put it back at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I can going to change the quote to a part of a poem by the same artist, saying that it is taken from that poem and evidently just a part. I think that is allowed within the rules. Curiocurio (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It may or may not be possible to quote a short copyrighted poem in its entirety on a fair use basis. See my reply here: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/February#Quoting full, presumably copyrighted, translation of short poems fair use? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

File:St. Bonaventure Script Logo.png

Can this file be converted to {{PD-logo}} or does it need to be {{Non-free logo}}? If it can 't be converted to PD, then its non-free use in all the articles it's being used in does not really comply with WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Doubtful but that does not even look like the current logo per the banner from their mainpage, so should be replaced anyway, however, each use will require its own rationale. ww2censor (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: I don't think non-free use can be justified for each of the articles even if the other image you found was uploaded as non-free. Generally, mascot logos have been considered OK for athletic department articles or stand-alone articles about the mascot itself because that is typically where any critical commentary of the logo is likely to be found. In other articles about individual teams or individual seasons, non-free use has not really been allowed per item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI except when the logo is team specific or season specific. That is why wordmarks for sports teams are often used in these child entity articles because they tend to be simple enough to be PD as shown in c:Category:NCAA logos and therefore are not subject to WP:NFCC. Anyway, if this logo is too complex for c:Template:PD-textlogo then I cannot see how its non-free use can be justified for any of the articles where its being used.

Finally, thanks for fixing the syntax in my original post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

By saying a WP:FURG would be required assumes they would have to pass all 10 WP:NFCC requirements but that is of course a different issue to the logo being simple of not. I am not familiar with sport specific logo use, just with WP:TOO and WP:NFCC. I doubt either logo can be justified beyond a single basic use. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure this isn't a {{PD-logo}}. I certainly don't see how it's more complex than File:Best Western logo.svg, and that's kind of the standard to check against. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Trying to put in a picture of Claiborne from the Times Picayune.

The William C.C. Claiborne wiki page has the need for this picture here of him, instead of the portrait of Simon Farve. I am having trouble uploading it and put in the tag for the release of my screenshot of the Times Picayune Article in which I found the portrait in the article about the Claiborne Reunion.

• 
  Caption1
• 
  Caption2

is what I used.

I tried to release it too.

Can someone just fix the picture and use the Claiborne picture instead of his translator Farve's picture?

Regards, Rachelle Roby Healthy Feet (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Healthy Feet Are you saying that the current image File:William C C Claiborne rectangleLAState.jpg on the William C.C. Claiborne article is incorrectly identified? I reverted all you edits to that article as you made a complete mess of the whole thing breaking the infobox completely. Why would you want to change a good quality image for the low quality one that you uploaded? Besides which, you failed to provide any of the required details about that image, neither source, author or date information nor a copyright tag; all are required to verify the copyright status of the image, so we can't fix it for you. The image will be deleted without such details and YOU can't release it unless you took it yourself. Here http://www.knowlouisiana.org/entry-image/william-c-c-claiborne-2 is a much better quality image with all the details needed for such a painting that might be used as a replacement but the current image looks fine to me. ww2censor (talk) 09:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair use of self-made maps

In older role-playing video games from the 80s and 90s you often had to create your own maps on graph paper. My question is, would uploading one of these maps constitute a copy-right violation if the game is a commercial one? Thanks. SharkD  Talk  04:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Moved from WP:VPP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@SharkD: While I can't find anything definitively addressing hand-drawn maps, the material I can find regarding strategy guides and the like are relatively well in line with standard copyright law. The rule there is that information that's just plain fact, rather than artistic or creative, cannot be copyrighted (the presentation of the facts can be, but not the facts themselves). So, you can always say "Boss X has 1300 hit points", as that's a plain fact and uncopyrightable. "Room A has Room B to the north" strikes me as the same type of purely factual information, so I should think you'd be okay, so long as the hand-drawn maps don't include any drawings or copies of artistic elements from the game and are just a sequence of "This leads to that." If you put the information into words, it would be something to the effect of "Boss X is five rooms north and then two east from the fifth dungeon's entrance", and that would be a plain statement of fact. I can't see how putting that same information into a graphical format changes the nature of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! SharkD  Talk  11:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

do owners of paintings by a deceased artist own the copyright on them?

I have 24 photos taken by the various owners of paintings that were done by an artist who died Sept.15, 2015. Do these people own the copyright and can I use them to illustrate my article about him on Wikipedia? Some of the photos are mine, the rest were sent to me with their permission to utilize in the bio. The photos are critical to the bio. I have used the JMW Turner Wikipedia bio as a general guide. I am trying to get the text completed and approved before I upload any photos to the Commons to begin using them. You can see what I have done so far on Draft:Dennis Blalock Elisabet Stacy-Hurley Elisabet Stacy-Hurley 03:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabet Stacy-Hurley (talk • contribs)

Elisabet Stacy-Hurley The simple answer is no, possession of a photo or painting confers no rights to the possessor. The copyright belongs to the original copyright holder, or their heirs, so unless you are a heir of this artist, you cannot release any photo you take of such a painting under a free license. Who sent you the photos you are referring to? Are they an heir, and if so, under what exact copyright license are they releasing the photos? Any photo is merely a derivative work and as such requires the permission of the copyright holder in addition to that of the photographer. BTW it is not critical, though preferable, to illustrate an artist's article and the more usual way will be to have a section with critical commentary about their style supported by reliable third party sources which can then help support the use of a non-free image to comply with our strict non-free policy. If a painting is important and well known enough it may even have its own article and then a non-free image can be used in the infobox of that article but I don't see that based on your post. You may not upload any non-free images to the commons; they will be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ww2Censor, thank you for your prompt reply. I listed the six people who volunteered to send me photos in the resources. One of whom (his sister) is the sole heir to all his paintings. I had sent her a copy of my original Word bio of him that included the 24 photos...it was 7 of those that she sent me. She said she was very happy with the bio and all the photos I used. I got emails from all 5 (I am the #6) that I had their permission to use their photos in his Wiki bio. We all took photos of paintings we own. Will it be enough to ask his sister to send me an email to approve all the paintings to be used, or should she put it in writing to mail to me? Not sure how to verify this. I looked at the various licensing and thought the BY-NC might work. Or, an editor told me before I even began to work on Wiki that I might be able to do the the free policy if I can post them either smaller or not enable anyone to enlarge to be able to sell prints.??? Not sure how that is done either. Appreciate your advice. Elisabet Stacy-HurleyElisabet Stacy-Hurley 20:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabet Stacy-Hurley (talk • contribs)

Think the easiest way is to upload them to Wikimedia Commons with a OTRS that your sister can email in (see:E-mail template for release of rights to a file. The template is in the black boarded box ( which can be cut&pasted into the email). Anyone on the Wikimedia Commons Help Desk can help if you need further advice. Then they can be used on any WP article. Yes, by all means send in images that are large enough for use Wikipedia but small enough that your sister can still benefit from reproduction rights in the coming future. Copyright law can be a little confusing at first but WC can guide you both though it. The owners of the paintings own the physical material but they don't own the copyright -which remains with the creator and his/her descendants. Aspro (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Whoops: Forgot your next point. BY-NC is not acceptable on any WP site. Suggest you use cc-by-sa-4.0 and upload images of 400 px. See: Wikipedia:Non-free content/Definition of "low resolution". Then they are too small for comecial use but WC may bring them to the notice of someone (book publisher, magazine, etc.) willing to pay for a image of higher quality. Make sure you have copies of these images on a media that lasts (i.e., not a pen-dive as the data decays in just a few years). Aspro (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Aspro, this helps me very much! I am just learning about this...not sure I even know how to sign out properly....Elisabet Stacy-Hurley Elisabet Stacy-Hurley 02:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabet Stacy-Hurley (talk • contribs)

To sign out: Look at the very right top hand corner of the page. It will say log out, click on it. If you are already signed out, it will offer the option to log in. Aspro (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This page has a non-free use rationale, but ...

JJMC89 bot has removed the cover image File:Cover of Tectonophysics (journal).gif from Tectonophysics (journal), stating that it is missing a non-free use rationale - yet there is a {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template with all the fields filled out in File:Cover of Tectonophysics (journal).gif#Summary. There is also a copyright license, so what is the problem? RockMagnetist(talk) 15:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• The problem is the rationale is for Tectonophysics, not for Tectonophysics (journal). --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I have fixed that, so I'll reinstate the image. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, the rationale has two "n.a." fields in it. All criteria apply to every nonfree image, so those need to be completed. No requirement is ever not applicable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Uhm, no. Those "n.a." are put in by the File Upload Wizard, and that's by design. They mark fields that, for a given type of non-free item, are always predictable and trivially covered and therefore do not require individual explanation. In this case, the matter of respecting commercial opportunity cannot ever pose a problem for the routine use of a cover art image (in its "identifying" function at the top of the article about the work in question), so the upload wizard doesn't ask the user for input on that matter. We want rationales to be informative and focus on those issues that are actually individual, not redundant and trivial boilerplate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I was not aware of the problem with the upload wizard, but that needs to be fixed in that case. All criteria still always apply. Still, if that is a problem with the wizard, my apologies to the uploader, that wasn't your fault. Even if it's boilerplate, it still needs to be considered for each and every upload. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
          • I wrote the upload wizard and I designed those standard rationales, more than five years ago. They have been included in probably tens of thousands of images since, and they work just as they should. This was previously discussed here. My views haven't changed since, and I don't think there's anything to add to what I said there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, somebody just brought up the same issue at Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard too; any further discussion should probably be held there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Stoker album.jpg

Does this logo/album cover need to be licensed as non-free or is it simple enough for {{PD-logo}}? If not, then I'm not sure if it can be used in the main infobox of Stoker (band) per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 since that is an article the band and not the album and it seems better to use a free image to identify the band. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd assert with a good deal of certainty that that is {{PD-logo}}. It consists only of text (how stylized the text is doesn't matter) and two horizontal lines (extremely simple geometric shapes). That's pretty much the very definition of PD-logo. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Though on further thought, I'm not sure it's exactly a logo since it's an album cover, so {{PD-simple}} might be more appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright assumptions

My understanding of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files is that we assume an image is copyright protected unless it has "explicitly been placed in the public domain." How does that policy comport with the {{PD-Pre1978}} licensing tag? Which reads:

By it comes an explicit placement in the public domain which seems to circumvent the assumption our policy intended, (consider its effect on File:The Allman Brothers Band (1972).JPG). What am I missing?--John Cline (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@John Cline: That image is on Commons, so your question would be better posed there. We don't have any control over Commons' copyright policies. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Pacificislanderrugbylogo.JPG

Image originally licensed as {{non-free logo}}, but was subsequently converted to {{PD-logo}} without removing the non-free rationales. Just want to check to see whether others feel its current licensing is OK before cleaning up the page a bit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)