Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/February

Possible copyright issue with File:Richard Leacock with his 16mm camera.jpg

The image was tagged by the uploader as "own work." However, this image is from the book "The Feeling of Being There: A Filmmaker's Memoir," and was taken by G. Andrew Boyd. http://www.canarybananafilms.com/press.html

While I believe there is an argument for fair use here, this image is not CC-licensed (it is © Richard Leacock/Canary Banana Films, according to the press page for the book linked above), and it does not appear to be the uploader's original work.

ChiaLynn (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion, Chialynn. In the case of previously published works that are identified as "own work" by the user, we need evidence that they are who they claim (and usually get none). We have one free Commons image of Leacock, which I've put in the article, so we don't need a fair use one. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for help with edit request

Please see Talk:Powtawche Valerino#editsemiprotected for an edit request that intersects with copyright. I don't know enough about copyright to answer the poster's question. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Replied there. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

File:The_Rolling_Stones_Tongue_Logo.png

Can I use this in the Kali article, or is it only for Rolling Stone articles? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

It’s licensed as non-free which means each use is going to have to comply with WP:NFCCP. This doesn’t mean that it can only be used in articles about the band, but it mind be harder to justify its non-free use in other types of articles, particularly per WP:NFCC#1 (see WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI) and WP:NFCC#8 (see WP:NFC#CS, WP:NFG, WP:NFTABLES and MOS:LOGO). — Marchjuly (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It can definitely be argued that there's no free equivalent. Wether that's enough is of course another question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, a "fee equivalent" doesn't necessarily mean a "free equivalent image". Just text can be considered a free equivalent per FREER, and a WP:HAT or WP:WIKILINK can be considered a free equivalent for non-free files being used multiple times in different articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

How do i do it

How do i add the file: sheikh-jawad-mosque back to list of mosques in Iraq? Islameditor47 (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It was removed by a bot here [1] (not an answer to your question). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Islameditor47: The file was removed by a bot run by JJMC89 per WP:NFCCE. Basically, it didn't have the separate specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c for List of mosques in Iraq. Sometimes simply providing the missing non-free use rationale is all that is needed; however, in this case, the file's non-free use in that article would still not really be allowed per WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFTABLES, WP:NFLISTS and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Non-free files are almost never allowed to be used to illustrate individual entries of a list article like was being done with this file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

RIP file. Islameditor47 (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Possible NFCC#8 violation

See file: File:Goody_two_shoes_cigarette_ad.jpg

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: deleted an image from Nicotine marketing with the edit summary "fails NFCC#8, because the necessary discussion requires only quotation of the relevant text, no depiction of the image accompanying it; this also fails NOR/SYNTH, since the analysis is unsourced/unreferenced"[2] @HLHJ: restored the image with the edit summary "previously removed image, adding the sourcing it was removed for lacking"[3]

The image is copyrighted. I am not sure the image is allowed to be used in the article. The content added to the image fails WP:CAPTION. I suspect other images in the Nicotine marketing article are copyright violations. If there is a problem with one image there could be a problem with other images. QuackGuru (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Quackguru about this image. There's nothing particularly distinctive about this particular advertisement, and the quoted observations can have their essential elements conveyed by text alone. If the observations hold generally, there's no reason to illustrate them with a nonfree advertisement; if they relate only to this ad, there's no showing that it's significant enough to be singled out. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Explicit: I think you had a discussion about this image. Pleas advise what should be done next. QuackGuru (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would actually disagree with the above, and agree the image can be used. The image is used in a section about the rebellious nature of nicotine advertizing following the requirement for the surgeon general's warning to be there. This is an image that attempts to show how the ad does everything to make smoking look graceful/etc. despite the big block of health warning. There is text in the body discussing this type of advertizing, this only being one example of that type. Given we are talking visual advertizing, that cannot be done with words alone, easily. The bulk of the text in the caption can be brought to the body to explain one ad campaign that received media attention for fluanting the nicotine advertising principles. --Masem (t) 01:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no content in the body of the article about the image. Therefore, it is currently a copyright violation because the image is not directly mentioned in the article. When it is not mentioned in the body of the article it demonstrates it is not essential or important. If it was very important there would of been specific content in the body of the article about the ad. QuackGuru (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    • First off, it is not a copyright violation. It is an image that has the necessary elements to comply with the aspects of what we expect for fair use allowance within the context of non-free content - it has a rationale, it credits the source, and it is used minimally (reduced size and used only one). Now, you are basically saying you think it is a violation of our NFC policy, specificlly WP:NFCC#8 for significance, and that's a fair element to discuss to meet the Foundation's minimal non-free goal, but it is no way a copyright violation in the context of fair use.
    • So in terms of NFC, if the caption text was moved into body to explain that that ad is an example of rebellious advertising, then it fully meets NFCC#8. And even as is, the fact that the caption relates to the existing text at least shows some relevance. It is not 100% disjointed as being argued. It should be improved, though, by moving caption text to body text to make a stronger link. --Masem (t) 02:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
      • You stated "...if the caption text was moved into body to explain that that ad is an example of rebellious advertising, then it fully meets NFCC#8." At the moment the text is only part of the image. Right now it does violate NFCC#8 because no content about the image is in the body of the article. Another concern is the text that is part of the image violates WP:CAPTION. These issues needs to be fixed otherwise the image may be deleted. It is the responsibility of the editor who restored the image to fix the issues. If the issues are not fixed then the image may be nominated for deletion. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Key is: it is fixable. Yes, the onus to fix is on the one wanting to keep it, but I will tell you right now that trying to delete it because clear steps to fix something just haven't been done will result in a lot of backlash against those trying to nominate it for deletion. We learned this lesson several years ago. --Masem (t) 06:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
          • There should be a limit how long an editor needs to fix it. If it is not fixed sooner or later then it should be deleted. How much time do you think needs to be given before it is nominated for deletion. Others may believe it is a violation of NFCC#8 no matter what is done. QuackGuru (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
            • There really is no time limit, just as the case with AFD where sources have been positively identified but not yet included. You're still free to challenge if NFCC#8 is met through an FFD but the challenge should be based on if the caption text was in the body and those types of issues resolved. --Masem (t) 01:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
              • There can be a time limit of about a week if I remove or comment out the image until the issues are fixed. If the issues are not fixed the image will automatically be deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
                • I added the image, at Nicotine marketing#Methods. I discussed it with EpochFail, though I don't recall where. I can't illustrate modern nicotine marketing methods with a non-copyright image; the older out-of-copyright ads (also used in the article) use more primitive techniques, and can't illustrate modern changes in methods or adaptations to regulation, for instance. Is there any policy that says that the commentary has to be in the article body and not the caption? I put the general information in the article body, and the (sourced) statements of how this image is an example of the general principles discussed in the caption, because I thought that division would make the article easier to understand. HLHJ (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
                  • Technically there is no policy. From NFCC, NFCC#8 says that the image must help the reader's comprehensive, and its absence harm that. If you strictly have a relevant image but everything that even alludes to that image is buried in the caption, then the second part of NFCC#8, imagining the case where the image and its caption are removed from the article, then there is no harm to the reader's understanding because the text never alluded to it to start. So yes, it is better to keep captions short and put the supporting text in the body to point to the image. --Masem (t) 06:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

See comment by @Explicit: "Critical commentary can be included in the article text; its entirety does not need to be placed in the caption."[4] The content added to the image still violates WP:CAPTION and there is no commentary about the image in the article. See WP:NFCC#8: "Contextual significance. 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." There is no specific content about the image in the body. Therefore, the image does not in any way significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic. This means it is currently a violation of WP:NFCC#8. QuackGuru (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Technically, that's correct. But, when this issue is so trivially easy to fix, why is so much time being devoted to this discussion, when it would take far less effort just to move the text from the caption into the article and replace the caption with "An example of rebellious Nicotine marketing"? Is this an exercise in setting some kind of precedent for future utility...parsing tiny nuances of policy for future reference? Color me confused. Mojoworker (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of expediency, I went ahead and moved the text from the caption into the article. Mojoworker (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. If you read the comments below we could still be arguing about the content for weeks. QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict with 18:56 comment, intervening comments are out of chronological order)

You are entirely right, QuackGuru, that it was Explicit, not EpochFail. I have no idea how I misremembered that. Both begin with "E"? Apologies to both parties. What Explicit said seems entirely reasonable; the commentary may be in the body text, and need not be in the caption. This is not the same as saying that the commentary must be in the body text, and may not be entirely in the caption. Indeed, WP:caption seems to me, in this case, to imply that at least some critical commentary must be in the caption.

I did cut down somewhat on the caption text Explicit was commenting on. I kept the example information in the caption, with the general principles in the body text, as I think this is a legitimate structure for article content, helpful to understanding in this particular case.

QG, you say "Right now it does violate NFCC#8 because no content about the image is in the body of the article"; can you cite the applicable policy? I'm still confused here. Separately, what part of WP:caption do you feel it violates?

As to why this ad, mostly because I could find RS discussing how that particular ad illustrated the article topic, which you insisted on. I don't think images require sources specifically linking them to the article topic (thisthe RS noticeboard agreed), but I hoped to avoid further argument. The existence of these sources suggests that the image is itself significant (arguably even notable), but I don't think that the individual image has to be significant in order for the image to be an example of a significant thing (modern nicotine advertising tactics). I mean, if I look up car engines, I don't expect the individual engines photographed to be significant as individual engines; I expect them to be bog-standard representatives of their class. I don't expect the dogs depicted in the article about dogs to be famous dogs. The article on velcro need not restrict itself to depictions of world-renowned velcro pieces which have received significant media attention.

I also think that the ad is a good choice because it illustrates a large number of strategies:

• rebellion, individuality (the slogans "NEVER let the goody two shoes get you down" and "Find your voice", but also something of the model's pose and attitude)
• conformity to a group image (smoke this brand and identify yourself with the portrayed attributes!)
• health (the model looks healthy, and the gesture creates an association with a lack of throat irritation, say RS)
• wealth (diamond earring, more obvious at full resolution)
• sensual/sexual allure (something it's a bit hard to convey without showing the image)
• exploitation of minorities, seeking to associate itself with their empowerment and independence (the ad ran in the US, portrays an upwards-looking young black woman as finding her voice... by smoking? Addiction brings independence?)

So yes, I think this image significantly increases readers' understanding. I suspect that if it did not educate, QG would not object to it nearly as much . HLHJ (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

See diff and diff. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry, Mojoworker, our edits were pretty much simultaneous. Could I ask you not to make that edit until the discussion here is resolved? I'm not sure that QG is right to say that it is necessary. HLHJ (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Too late. I did it 3 hours ago. Revert it if you must, but I don't think that would be an improvement. Mojoworker (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with reverting an improvement to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, more confused. Is there any reason to put the content in the article body, and not in the caption? I don't think it reads as well, though I'd welcome third-party views. QG, did moving the caption contents resolve your concerns? HLHJ (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from User:Masem and others on this matter about this change. QuackGuru (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

If you think the content in the image is not enough then you may be able to add one short sentence to the image. Mojoworker must also agree. QuackGuru (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for anything that improves the article and is compliant with WP:CAPTION, especially: 1.5 establishing relevance to the article, 1.6 Providing context for the picture, and 1.7 Drawing the reader into the article. Mojoworker (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The changes made by Mojoworker[5] were reverted. See WP:NFCC#8 and also see WP:CAPTION. It was reverted back to a prior version. QuackGuru (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I made this change to comply with WP:NFCC#8 and WP:CAPTION. QuackGuru (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying back sooner, I'm looking at the current version, and its getting there, but the text is awkward. The picture's use should flow with the text. This is fully possible, if one starts that paragaph as describing the Virginia Slims' "Find Your Voice" ad campaign (of which the image is part of) part of the rebellious and critically panned advertising for cigarettes. I can't tell if this source is used, but this appears to be out of a 2001 report from the Surgeon General's office on women and smoking, and the specific draw of advertising, forced on this specific campaign, so talk about the campaign in the prose, and on the image caption it should just be described as "One of the 'Find Your Voice' ads used by Virginia Slims in 1999 that drew attention due to its rebellious advertizing aimed at women." --Masem (t) 17:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

And to add, unless it is impartitive to follow a flow chart or the like, we rarely say in prose "The image to the right", or otherwise referring to the image. This is because depending on device we cannot assure the image would be visible. --Masem (t) 17:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I made this change to the caption. QuackGuru (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I made additional changes to the prose to better fit what I was talking about as to have the image there and be tied to the text (meeting NFCC#8) but not be confusing if one's devices fails to show it. --Masem (t) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Can I use this Map of the Fourth Creek Congregation?

Is the map of the Fourth Creek Congregation at https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ncmaps/id/118 ok to upload in Wikimedia Commons?

The NC Archives web site shows the following restrictions: This item is presented courtesy of the State Archives of North Carolina, for research and educational purposes. Prior permission from the State Archives is required for any commercial use.

I would like to use it on the Wikipedia page Fourth Creek Congregation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Moore (talk • contribs)

As long the date published of 1847 is correct (which it appears to be), it qualifies for PD-old and may be uploaded to Commons. --Masem (t) 19:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

A frontal non-free image because we only have a profile

Glenn Gould 1.jpg

We use the non-free File:Glenn Gould portrait.jpg because the only picture of him as an adult is the profile (pictured). Is this really a good enough rationale for a non-free? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally I actually like the profile picture better – it shows him actually playing and conveys a lot about his highly individual, quirky playing style and personality, much more than that softened and clichéed portrait. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything you just wrote. Plus, the profile shows him maybe 20 years older. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Since he's not particularly Wikipedia notable for his appearance, it could be argued that the profile picture is an acceptable free equivalent to the non-free. Moreover, the copyright license being used for the non-free image is not really appropriate because there's nothing particularly historic about that photo. It would be better to use {{non-free biog pic}} instead.

Non-free use isn't really justified because a non-free image is of a higher quality than an existing free equivalent image and a "robust depiction" isn't really necessary for primary identification purposes. If either of these two things were acceptable justifications for non-free use, you'd pretty much be able to replace tons of free images used for primary identification purposes with a better higher quality non-free ones. The real question seems to be whether WP:FREER is met by the profile image and opinions might vary on that. So, you can try tagging the file with {{rfu}}, but it might be better just to nominate it for discussion at WP:FFD and see what others think. It might also be worth seeing if the copyright holder who sent in the OTRS permissions email for the Commons file, might be willing to release another file of Gould (perhaps looking straight at the camera) as an alternative to the profile one. The possibility of such a thing (one has already been released so it seems reasonable to expect that another might be released) might be another reason why this non-free cannot be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, it's not good enough. "Somewhat better" is not a valid fair use rationale. I have nominated the image for speedy deletion. GMG^talk 13:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Filenames

How do I change a file name? (From WikiTimmy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTimmy (talk • contribs) 12:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:File mover for more details because only certain editors can WP:MOVE files and they will only do so for certain reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiTimmy, This isn't exactly a copyright question, but I'll answer it anyway. Files on the English Wikipedia can only be moved by file movers. To request that a file be moved, you can place the following template on the file description page, replacing "target name.extension" with what you want the file name to be and "reason for name change" with the reason you want the file moved: {{rename media|target name.extension|reason for name change}}. If you have any other questions not related to the copyright status of an image, feel free to ask at the Teahouse. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Poland First To Fight.jpg

The image File:Poland First To Fight.jpg[6] was removed from the article on Allies of World War II by User:JJMC89 bot, citing "Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page." However, the image has a rational on its page, which states "This image is a low-resolution image of the old 1942 poster. This image does not limit the copyright holder's ability to profit from the original source, nor will it dilute the importance or recognition of the logo in connection with its organization. This image enhances the article in which it's displayed, as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone." Please advise if this rational is sufficient. --E-960 (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I could see that poster used in some article to illustrate sourced commentary that "The poster illustrates the prevailing attitudes in Great Britain after the Nazi German invasion of Poland" (as it says on the file description page). But IMO the use in Polish contribution to World War II is merely decorative and does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 23:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

As for Allies of World War II, it was removed by the bot because there is no separate rationale for that article. Each use must have its own rationale that names the article. Add one using {{Non-free use rationale 2}}. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Palnut article

Hello everyone! I am currently working on uploading an improvement upon the Palnut Fastener article on wikipedia and would like to upload an image to improve the page. Could I be placed in the fair use category if I cited a companies image correctly? There are plenty of suitable images on the internet but I am currently not too sure on what would be okay and not okay too use and just wanted to double check with the community before I did anything rash. I appreciate your help! -BrycieboiM — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrycieboiM (talk • contribs) 02:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Assuming that a Palnut looks similar to File:Nylon Lock Nut.png without any clearly visible copyrighted company logos or other markings, then I don't think you'd be able to use a photo from the company's website or any other website (such as this) per WP:FREER, unless you are the original copyright holder of the photo (i.e. the photographer). I'm pretty sure that nuts, bolts, nails, etc. are considered c:COM:CB#Utility objects which means that anyone should be able to go to a hardware store or wherever Palnut fasteners might be sold, buy some, and take a photograph of them (without any packaging). That person could then upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons per c:Commons:Licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Reach for the Sky (Ratt) cover image

Someone stating that he is the cover artist has posted at Talk:Reach for the Sky (Ratt album)#Copyright issue (I have transferred the message there from the article itself). The image was hidden for a long time by parameter errors, and made visible by this bot edit last October. Would someone well-versed in fair use conditions please deal as appropriate and let Jean-Francois Podevin know the outcome?: Bhunacat10 (talk), 20:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The file was upload as non-free content as many album covers tend to be, and I don't think in article attribution is necessarily required by WP:NFCC or fair use in general. Permission of the copyright holder only seems to be required if the content is being uploaded to Wikipedia under a free license. If supporting secondary reliable sources can be found which credit Jean-Francois Podevin as the creator of the cover art, then that can be added to the article about the album; however, I don't think a primary source such as his official website would be acceptable for that per WP:BLPSELFPUB. The template {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} does have a parameter for |Graphic Artist and his name could be added there I guess and the link to his website added as the source for the file.

FWIW, I think it's typically assumed that the copyright on most album cover art is assumed to be held by the record label which releases the album, i.e. either someone working at the label designs it (e.g. work for hire) or it's content created by an independent contractor who then transfers copyright ownership to the label for some form of payment. In the latter case, it's possible that the original creator retained their copyright as part their agreement with the label; so, if that's the case here, then maybe WP:NFCC#2, WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#10a might be issues to be considered. If Podevin feels that his copyright is being infringed upon then perhaps he should he should consider contacting the Wikimedia Foundation directly per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Information for copyright owners. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Notifying Jean-Francois Podevin of this reply. I have added the name & website to the file as suggested: Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 February 16#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 February 16#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Authagraph projection.jpg

This image has been released under some variation of CC license (see here). Is there a way to clear the copyright restrictions that are currently mentioned in the image description (specifically, that it could only be used in a single article on English wiki)? A widespread use of this image and its derivatives may provide another parallel avenue for this maybe? cherkash (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The license is CC BY-ND 2.1 JP. The ND (NoDerivatives) restriction makes it non-free. It could be use for (an)other article(s) on en-wiki if the use met all the conditions of WP:NFCC and a non-free use rationale is added for that use. —teb728 t c 20:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

File:The First Issue of Seito - September 1911.jpg

Does this really need to be licensed as non-free content? If this is really the cover of the first issue of a magazine that was first published in 1911, then it should be be old enough for {{PD-US}} or {{PD-Japan}}, shouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This definitely meets PD-US (before 1923). According to Copyright law of Japan § Length of protection, works authored anonymously, pseudonymously, or by corporations (in this case, the Japanese Bluestocking Society) expire 70 years after publication, so this is PD-Japan as well. Qzekrom (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Assistance with non-free image

I just uploaded a non-free album cover for an article I'm editing. I originally uploaded the full-size 600px version, then replaced it with a scaled-down version. The image is File:Anesthetic Mark Morton album cover.jpg. I think the original upload needs to be revision deleted – can someone please assist? Qzekrom (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I added Template:furd. I think resizing and subsequent clean up, etc. would've all been eventually done by bots, but since you resized it yourself you probably needed to add the furd template as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I see, thanks! Qzekrom (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Posting a photo of a copyrighted painting

I am seeking to post a photo of a painting, and have received permission to do so from the artist who painted the picture. What certification do I need to provide in order to post the photo of the painting? Jr3arlington (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jr3arlington: It depends on the type of permission you've received from the artist. If it's along the lines of WP:CONSENT or WP:DONATEIMAGE, then please refer to c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder. In this case, the artist basically is agreeing to release a version/image of the painting under a license that will all pretty much anyone anywhere in the world to download it at anytime and use for any purpose (including commercial use and derivative use). This doesn't necessarily mean the artist is transferring their copyright over the image to Wikipedia or another person; it just means that the artist is making it much easier for others to freely use a particular version of the painting online, etc.

If the artist doesn't want to do this (and many don't), then it might be possible for a photo/image of the painting to be uploaded as non-free content, but it's use on Wikipedia will subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which tends to be quite restrictive. In this case, whether such a file should be uploaded pretty much depends entirely on how it's intended to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Lawschoolseal.jpeg,File:UGA_Law_School_Courtroom.jpg File:UGA One Reading Room.jpeg, File:One Courtroom the Hatton Courtroom UGA.jpeg, & File:Enclosed two Story Courtyard and Snackbar at UGA Law School.jpeg

File:Lawschoolseal.jpeg, File:UGA_Law_School_Courtroom.jpg, File:UGA One Reading Room.jpeg, File:One Courtroom the Hatton Courtroom UGA.jpeg, & File:Enclosed two Story Courtyard and Snackbar at UGA Law School.jpeg are all {{PD-self}} releasing all these images taken by me into the public domain. Quaerens-veritatem 12:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Quaerens-veritatem: No notification here on this board is required. I'm curious though; why are these all screenshots if they were taken by an iPad? Why are these images available elsewhere on the Internet? Did you perhaps screen shot these on your iPad by taking screenshots of websites? That's violating copyright. Please respond. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Don’t know if they show on internet; haven’t seen them; took them with an iPad Mini 4 which has a great camera. I see photos similar to mine, but lots of people take photos around that campus. Thanks, Quaerens-veritatem / (talk)
    • @Quaerens-veritatem: I moved your comment here from my talk page so we can keep discussion together With respect, your images are identical to several found on the Internet. Why? Why is the metadata on your images showing they are screenshots? Let's look at one of these images; File:One Courtroom the Hatton Courtroom UGA.jpeg. This image is also found here. Your image is zoomed of course, which makes sense for a screenshot. Zooming that image, and placing them over one another in a photo program, it becomes painfully obvious that these images are the same image. So unless you were standing in exactly the same place, with exactly the same camera position, angle, and exactly the same camera as the image that is shown on llm-guide.com, there is no possible way that this image you uploaded is somehow yours. Please explain this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Sorry — I finally located
        Sorry, couldn’t find out how to respond on the page you used. I looked at your pamphlet and my shot of the courtroom is different. If you’ve ever been in that room, you can tell the lighting is often the same because of the drawn shades and the lighting for effect. It’s not an auditorium. I remember having trouble framing the shots, and didn’t use one of the judges’ bench because of focal limits of the iPad. I’ve been taking photos (including award winning & almost all my school’s high school annual pictures) since grammar school and can tell you I have no idea how to photoshop a picture from an an iPad except for the rudimentary built in abilities that come with it. If you want to drive me to Athens (food & any lodging included, of course) I can show you exactly how I took the photos. Regards, Quaerens-veritatem 14:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC) / (talk)
      • @Quaerens-veritatem: Moving comment here again. You've edited this before, you can edit it again. Thanks. With respect, sorry but this isn't believable. It isn't just a question of lighting. Sure, a room will be illuminated in the same way by its lighting from one day to the next (barring outside light coming in through the windows, which could dramatically affect the lighting, but I'll give you that one). But that is only one aspect of this. Your image has the SAME camera angle. Your image has the SAME exposure. Your image has the SAME focal length. Not only would the image I noted have to have been taken by an iPad mini as well, but you would have had to have been standing in exactly the same place, holding the iPad at exactly the same height, and tilting it at exactly the same angle. This is not plausible. Your only explanation is that the room lighting would be the same? Please explain these other issues. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
        • There were very few places to take these shots, and I deleted many, many, many shots that did not turn out the way I wanted them. Actually, the shots on your pamphlet are different and any closeness (I could not see) was because of the limited area in which you could take a decent photo. I suggest any photographer worth his salt would move to an area that produced the best result. The areas to take the subject pictures is very limited. Also, I disagree that the photos in your pamphlet were taken at the exact same height and angle anyway. (1) I am a single finger typist and (2) I don’t see that I will convince you, (3) and I am tired of a fruitless argument. As such, we will have to agree to disagree (which disagreement I will always maintain). I suggest you go to Athens with an iPad and I believe you can take the same pictures (it’s not that hard). Have a nice day. Quaerens-veritatem 15:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC) (talk)
          • Unfortunately, your explanations are not plausible. The chance that someone could randomly, without any intent to do so, take exactly the same image, with the same camera, with the same angle, with the same exposure, with the same tilt of the camera...is just not possible. Especially given that another of your images, File:Enclosed two Story Courtyard and Snackbar at UGA Law School.jpeg, suffers from the same problems...and this time it's outdoors. So, add on that you took the image at the exact same time of day, with exactly the same cloud patterns reflected in the windows. This is not believable. I will be tagging your images as copyright violations. Please understand; you can not find an image somewhere on the Internet, screenshot it, then upload it here claiming it is yours. This is blatant copyright violation. I advise you not to continue this behavior, as doing so will very likely result in your being blocked. You have an iPad mini. You apparently have an interest in this subject. Go take your own photos, rather than taking them from somebody else. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk)
            • I regret your position that two photographers taking pictures at the same time can’t have seemingly identical results. Please read my comments to each challenged photo, specially noting I had permission for some you challenged and that what appears improbable is not impossible. If your stand wins out, I will have to go to the trouble of visiting Athens and, I fear, will have to go through this all over again. While I appreciate your guardianship and tenacity, I wonder if it is helpful to see a black and white world (pun intended). Regards, Quaerens-veritatem 18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
              • I don't think I've expressed myself well enough. File:Enclosed two Story Courtyard and Snackbar at UGA Law School.jpeg this image is identical to one on a website which I've noted previously. Unless your camera was in exactly the same place as the camera that took that image, at the exact same time (which is physically impossible) there is no possible way that your image is somehow a different one than the one on that website. This is blatant, unequivocal copyright infringement. This is not tolerated on this project. I do hope I've been clear. Continuing to maintain your image is different in the face of this concrete evidence is frankly absurd. You have no leg to stand on. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
              • @Quaerens-veritatem: The website photo of the courtyard/snackbar is attributed to a Cindy Rice and dated July 25, 2102. Are you the same Cindy Rice? If you're not, I agree with Hammersoft that it seems extremely unlikely that your photo and the website photo are not the same. Everything about the photos from the people sitting in the courtyard to the sunlight glare in the windows and the shadows by the trees seems identical. Now, if you originally took the photo and it somehow ended up on the school's website, then that might be something which can be sorted out per c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?; however, trying to continue to claim that the photos were taken by different people is almost certainly going to lead to their deletion for precautionary reasons.
                I did notice that you're claiming you received permission from a Rick O'Quinn for some of the photos you uploaded to Commons. Verbal permission is not going to be sufficient for verification purposes; so, please look at c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder and follow the instructions there.
                Finally, if you would like to explain or clarify the licensing of files which have been nominated for deletion, the best place to do so would be on the deletion discussion pages themselves, not the file talk pages. Links to these deletion discussions were added to both your Wikipedia and Commons user talk pages for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
                • @Hammersoft:@Marchjuly:@Ronhjones: The photos you challenged with permission are not being used, but I will get permission if needed. As to the subject of this thread as to the courtroom, etc., I have shared the above subject photos with others including the university so they may have been reused. Putting aside your arguments and metadata (which I don’t fully understand), it seems to me (1) the photos are simple “point and shoot” photos without any copyrightable content in the first place. Anyone can take the same photos. As I understand it, the requirement under US law is that a work, including a derivative work, must display originality to be protectable under copyright law. These “point and shoot” photos are not artistic, original or unique. As I further understand, a work must be original relative to the underlying work on which it is based (in this case, parts of a building). Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright protection and copying it will not infringe any copyright of the work or any derivative work. (2) The photos pointed out in https://llm-guide.com/schools/usa/georgia-usa/university-of-georgia-school-of-law/photos are specifically uploadable (the site reads, “Please register if you'd like to upload a photo.”) If you deem it necessary, I will so register. I really don’t want to go to the trouble and expense to take the exact same pictures over again. Since Ronhjones and Marchjuly already some of the photos I am including them in this thread for there help, education, wisdom, input, and expertise. Thank you all for your time and good work. Quaerens-veritatem 22:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC) (Quaerens-veritatem|Talk)
                • @Marchjuly: P.S. Please excuse my ignorance - Marchjuly, I could not find the “deletion discussion pages” you referenced. Thanks Quaerens-veritatem 23:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC) (Quaerens-veritatem|Talk)
                  • Quaerens-veritatem, first off I want to make it clear that nobody, including me, is trying to be hostile towards you in any respect. I know you haven't said as much, but I want to make it clear. Our interest is in furthering the project. That sometimes includes making sure that content that we can not use is not allowed to exist here. As to the idea of point-and-shoot images not attracting copyright. This isn't the case. Photographs such as these automatically attract copyright, and have done so for decades now. If this were not the case, then photographers would not be able to make a living. Therefore, the images you copied onto this project most emphatically are eligible for copyright by the person who took the images, or the agency on behalf of whom they were working. As to the llm-guide.com images, if you took photos of these locations yourself and uploaded them here then we could use them. We can't use the ones you copied from llm-guide.com. Whether you uploaded images there or here in the future is of no concern. The current images that you copied from there can not be used without specific release under a free license from the copyright holders. I'm sorry if this seems overly complex, but copyright law is so, and our desire to have a free license product here at Wikipedia does as well. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
                  • @Quaerens-veritatem: Links to the deletion discussions I mentioned above can be found in the varous notifications added to User talk:Quaerens-veritatem or c:User talk:Quaerens-veritatem by the editors who nominated the files for deletion/discussion. Links can also be found in the notifications added to each nominated file's page. Using the link will be listed in blue as "this file's entry" or "the nomination page".
                    As for point-and-shoot photos, what you're saying might be true in some cases, but not automatically in every case. For example, Person A can go outside and take a photo of the sky without worrying about infringing upon anyone's copyright because the sky isn't going to be considered eligble for copyright protection. Person B can do the same thing also without worrying about infringing upon anyone's copyright. The photos taken by the Persons A and B, however, are almost always going to be eligible for copyright protection, which means Person A cannot really upload Person B's photo to Wikipedia under a free license without getting their explicit consent to do so first. Building exteriors are for the most part not considered eligible for copyright protection in the US as explained in c:COM:FOP United States, but photos which are taken of them typically are and the copyright of those photos (not just of the building) also needs to be taken into account when uploading them to Wikipedia. Things are a bit trickier for building interiors becuase they may be eligible for copyright protection in some cases; however, even if they aren't, any photos taken of them are still likely to be considered copyright protected. So, when it comes to photos there are typically two things which need to be considered: the copyright (or lack thereof) of the photo itself, and the copyright (or lack thereof) of what is being photographed. So, unless you've taken a photo yourself, you cannot claim copyright ownership over and upload a freely licensed version of it to Wikipedia without the explicit consent of the person who actually took the photo. At the same time, if you did take the photo but its a photo of a copyrighted work created by another person, then you hold the copyright on your photo but not necessarily on the other person's work; so, you cannot upload your photo of their work to Wikipedia without their permission. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
                • @Hammersoft:  :@Marchjuly: Thank you both for your time, expertise, the very helpful explanation and your courtesy. Hammersoft, I appreciate your comment about hostility; short explanations can seem pointed, but I realize now you were just being direct and trying to fulfill your duties. Life is short (I know this as one with disabilities) so it’s always good to be kind. I understand that File:Lawschoolseal.jpeg has passed muster by Ronhjones. Kindest regards, Quaerens-veritatem 01:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC) (Quaerens-veritatem|Talk)

Photos from museum exhibit

The Denver Art Museum recently held an exhibit on the fashion house of Dior and I managed to take several good quality images of several the dresses featured in the exhibit. I was wondering if images from such an exhibit can be used on Wikipedia freely? SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@SpiritedMichelle: From what I read in Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Clothing you can upload them locally here on the English Wikipedia (fashion is not copyrighted in the US) but not on Commons (fashion is copyrightable in France, which seems to be the country of origin in this case). Use {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} to indicate the subject matter and chose an additional license of your choice for the photography. On the other hand, I see lots of French fashion uploaded on Commons. If you insist on uploading to Commons, you should take a look at deletion request archives there to see how comparable cases have been dealt with. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@SpiritedMichelle: If you do as suggested by Finnusertop, I think you need to be careful and make sure the photo is just of the dresses themselves and doesn't include any other copyrightable elements associated with the exhibition or display. The dresses themselves might be considered utilitarian enough, but other parts of the display may not. The way the dresses are displayed in combination with other dresses or accessories might also have a creative element to it as well (sort of like a WP:COLLAGE). You probably should look at c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography for more reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Utne Reader image

Hello! An image of Utne Reader magazine, File:Cover of Utne Reader.gif, was removed earlier today from the Aftermath section of New World Alliance article by JJMC89 on the basis that it violates WP:NPCC. The image was affixed next to a paragraph that mentioned the magazine and its founder.

Before adding that image to the article, I carefully read WP's special copyright instructions under the image. As I noted via the History tab when affixing the image, it appeared to be in compliance with each of those copyright instructions – must be low resolution (check), must give date of specific issue (did that in the caption), must show title of publication (check), and must not be used for the purpose of depicting the person on the cover (the caption as well as the article text made it clear the purpose here was solely to depict the physical existence of Utne Reader).

JJMC89 did not respond to my note on the History tab, they simply removed the image and told editors to direct any questions to this page. My question is, Why was the Utne Reader image removed when it appears to be in compliance with all the copyright criteria listed under it? Thanks so much for your attention to this matter! - Babel41 (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Babel41. First of all, I wikilinked the image in your post above to make it easier for others to find. Now, about the image's removal.

Each use of a non-free file is required to have a separate specific non-free use rationale per non-free content use criterion #10c and those which do not can be removed per WP:NFCCE. The file only has a non-free use rationale for the article Utne Reader, so this is why JJMC89 (more specifially JJMC89's bot) removed the file (this is mentioned in the edit summary left here).

The question then becomes whether a valid non-free use rationale can be written for the way you wish to use the image in the the "New World Alliance" article. Simply adding a rationale is often not sufficient in and of itself as explained in WP:JUSTONE; the use needs to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria. After seeing how the file was being used I don't think that a valid rationale can be written for this type of non-free use. Generally, a non-free magazine, book, album, CD, video game box, etc. cover is allowed to be used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article of the work in question, but its non-free use in other articles is much harder to justify per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 (for magazine/book covers item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI also is applicable). This is because such usage tends to be more decorative than not and the cover art itself is not really the subject of an sourced critical commentary to proved the context for non-free use required by non-free content use criterion #8. Simply mentioning the magazine by name in a subseciton of another article isn't really a sufficient justification for non-free use of its cover per WP:FREER; a much better case would be made if there's was actually some critical discussion of this particular cover in the article which is supported by citations to reliable sources.

That's my opinion and if you disagree you can write up a non-free use rationale for the use in "New World Alliance" and add the rationale to the file's page, and then re-add the image to the article. However, as I mentioned above, just adding a non-free use rationale doesn't automatically make the use policy compliant, and another editor can nominate the file for further discussion at WP:FFD or tag it with Template:di-disputed fair use rationale if they disagree. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for this thorough answer, Marchjuly. I really hope you preserve it to share with others who are confused in the way I was confused. I was not, as was clear from the adjacent text and caption in the NWA article, using the cover to discuss that particular cover, only to illustrate the existence of Utne's magazine. And the adjacent text not only discusses Eric Utne & the magazine (in the context of NWA's aftermath) but cites two mainstream sources informing that discussion (an article in People magazine and a book published by Simon & Schuster). Even if I go on to argue "my case," though, it does seem clear that - as you indicate - different administrators may rule against the imge's inclusion, if not now then at some point in the future. So I will devote the (precious spare) time I have for working on Wikipedia to working on other WP things. Maybe someday Utne Reader will remove its restrictions on the cover, which hardly appear to serve its interests. Thanks again for your help! - Babel41 (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Uploading copy of a postal cover (envelope with stamp and special postmark) to illustrate the use of a historic "Shamrock" post office to celebrate St Patrick's day.

I have a graphic-file copy of a 1935 envelope 'postal cover' proving that a now-closed post office in a town called Shamrock was sought by celebrants of St Patrick's Day to have their letters mailed from. Is this non-copyrightable material capable of being posted without legal complications? The envelope includes a statement about St Patrick's Day, and a postmark from Shamrock, Missouri dated March 17, 1935. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifool (talk • contribs) 02:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Not acceptable, Antifool. The way you prove things is by citing a reliable published source. The long explanation is a tad more complicated by the answer stays the same. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There is an image of a Polish RAF I want to upload.

The pilot Tadeusz Kotz from the RAF doesn't have a photo but I have found a few photos of him I would like to know if any of them fall under copyright as I do not wish to upload any copyrighted material.

Here are two image locations.

http://www.polishairforce.pl/koc.html

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/polish-armed-forces-west-polskie-si-y-zbrojne-na-zachodzie-1939-1947/british-awards-polish-soldiers-182505/ His image is above his name.

--Jediaj02 (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Jediaj02:. I see no reason to assume that these photos would not be copyrighted. But since Kotz is deceased, you can upload a non-free one if you can't find anything free. Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard walks you through the steps. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Thank you had been redirected from the Community help page to the Teahouse and then to here it was minor hassle but its worth to help improve articles.

Works of the Philippines government

I recently came across {{Non-free Philippines government}} because an image that used it shadowed a similar Commons image. That image uses {{c:template:PD-PhilippinesGov}}, which is supported by the COM:CRT entry. The enwiki template contradicts the CRT entry. Previous discussions:

• c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov (keep)
• c:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-PhilippinesGov (keep)
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 21#Template:Non-free Philippines government (no consensus)
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 16#Template:Non-free Philippines government (no consensus)

The most recent TFD was closed no consensus, noting that TfD is not really the best venue for substantive copyright matters. This page is a better place than TfD for copyright discussions, so I'm listing it here. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Is an image of a device (i,e, a computer, machine, or some other mechanism) okay to upload?

I'm uploading an image of a wi-fi router for a page on Securly. I think it might be copyrighted, but I don't know. Should I upload it?--One Blue Hat^{❯❯❯ (talk)} 01:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Utility devices like routers, etc. cannot have copyright on their design, so you may take a photograph and license it under a free license (like CC-BY) and upload it to Commons. But you cannot use someone else's picture like this, unless you are able to get them to license it under a free license. --Masem (t) 01:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

One Blue Hat, Since you mentioned a US company, I'll only be referring to US copyright law. In most cases, something with a purely utilitarian purpose such as a computer does not qualify for copyright protection in the US. If an object has elements that show creativity and are not connected to the purpose of the object (such as if the device was in the shape of a copyrighted character), those elements alone would be protected by copyright. With smartphones and other devices with screens, the content displayed on that screen is likely protected by copyright. This problem can be avoided by turning off the screen before taking a picture. After looking at the Securly website, I don't foresee any pictures of their physical products that you take yourself being problematic. For more information see c:COM:TOYS and c:COM:UA --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Operation Capture the Flag.jpg

I'm not sure whether being uploaded anonymously to some Internet forum is a good reason for licensing this as public domain. It seems possible that this isn't the original work of the uploader or at least is a WP:Derivative work of some kind, which means it (or the original image used to make the derivative) is still under copyright protection. Can anybody find out more about this image or should it be tagged for deletion/discussion? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not a credible license. Deleted per WP:F9. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Governors of New Jersey

Is there contextual significance to having the images of Alfred E. Driscoll and Robert B. Meyner included in the List of Governors of New Jersey? I realize both images state their non-free use rationale is to only be used for their articles in question. But since the governorship is their only reason for encyclopedic significance in the first place, it seems like this would be germane usage. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately non-free images such as these are not allowed in lists or tables under our strict 10 point non-free policy criteria and for that reason have been removed. For more details you can review WP:NFCI. ww2censor (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ww2censor: Okay, fair enough. Thanks! Woko Sapien (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Why does this image tagged "Non-free_no_reduce" keep getting reduced in size?

This Windows Me image keeps getting reduced in size despite being tagged Non-free_no_reduce and meeting the guidelines posted at Software_screenshots#Requirements. Isn't 640x480 small enough?

K0D3R (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: as one of the editors reducing the image AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi K0D3R. I wasn't able to find any record of {{Non-free no reduce}} ever being added to the File:WindowsME.png. The file was last reduced by JJMC89 so perhaps he can further clarify why. -- Marchjuly (chjuly|talk) 01:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

K0D3R, That information page describes how to create a screenshot, not how to make it comply with the non-free content policy and guidelines. In most cases, a resolution greater than 0.1 megapixels is too large to meet WP:NFCC#3b. The current resolution of the image is 0.099645 megapixel. A higher resolution may be necessary if text that is integral to the meaning of the image becomes too small to read. Even with the 220px-wide thumbnail used in Windows ME I can still read the text, so I don't think this image qualifies for an exception. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

What they said. The file has never been tagged as {{Non-free no reduce}}, and I don't see a good reason to have the image be larger than 0.1 MP. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @AntiCompositeNumber. You're answer was concise and informative. I appreciate you providing a direct link to the policy and highlighting which guidelines directly pertain to the issue. I will read-up more screenshot copyright starting with the links you provided. @Marchjuly @JJMC89, I might have referenced the wrong template, but it is in the Non-free_images_tagged_for_no_reduction category. You can see that at the bottom of the File:WindowsME.png page in the last section.

K0D3R (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Katharina Lindner.jpg

Is anybody able to find a free equivalent for this non-free one to use in Katharina Lindner? Lindner died earlier this month and then this non-free was uploaded a few days later. This kind of thing has been previously discussed at WT:NFCC before (most recently at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 69#Images of deceased persons; although no period of time for waiting after a person dies is specified before a non-free image is going to be considered unreplaceable, it doesn't seem as if much effort is being made if only a week passes since the person dies. It also doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that a free equivalent is unlikely to be found of a professional soccer player. I was going to tag this with {{rfu}}, but wanted to get some other opinions first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can use a screenshot from this YouTube Video. It's from the official YouTube Channel of the Hartford Hawks (Lindner played college soccer at the University of Hartford). If it has been released under a CC license like some YouTube videos are, then maybe it could be used to create a free equivalent. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Anne O'Brien in 1980.jpeg

The file's description states it was transferred from Italian Wikipedia. The original file appears to be it:File:Anne O'Brien nel 1980.jpeg where it seems to be listed as PD, but it also is flagged not being able to be moved to Commons. If this cannot be moved to Commons because it's not PD in the US for some reason, then I think it probably needs to be treated as non-free for local use on English Wikipedia. This means a non-free use rationale is going to be needed for each use and a non-free copyright license is also going to be needed. {{Non-free biog-pic}} probably will work for the copyright license and {{Non-free use rationale biog}} for the rationale, but non-free use is really only jutisfiable in the stand-alone article Anne O'Brien (footballer) and not it 2016 in Ireland if this really needs to be non-free. At the same time, if this is both PD in Italy (assuming that's the country of origina) and in the US, then there's no real reason to not move it to Commons, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Am I the copyright holder of a photo?

I have a photo taken at a notable event in 1972. I am in the photo. I planned the photo and picked the best lighting and background. The photo was taken with my camera, with film that I bought and paid to be developed. I handed my camera to a friend and asked them to click the shutter. Am I the copyright holder? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The way you're describing this sounds pretty much like the person actually taking the photo is not adding any creative element to the process all; basically, it's as if they are human timer/tripod who holds the camera and then clicks the shutter on que. c:COM:Own work does state that photos of you not taken by you are not "own work" unless it's a formal "work-for-hire", but that might be broadly construed to cover more common cases of people actually claiming photos originally published by others as their own work. Perhaps what you're describing is similar to c:Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie.

I found this (see "Double bonus speed round") which seems to imply that simply clicking the shutter might be sufficient enough for a claim of joint ownership to be made absent some sort of formal agreement stating otherwise. That webpost is from 2010 though so maybe there's something out there that is more current.

Is your quesiton more of a hypothetical one or is there really such a photo? If there's really such a photo, then whether it has been published might also affect its copyright status. For example, if it was published prior to March 1989 without a copyright notice then it might be considered to be public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I am describing a photo that really exists. I scanned it and posted to my Facebook page several years ago but it was not published in any way before 1989. I would like to add it to an existing Wikipedia article. I will read the links you provided. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The photo in question is a bystander selfie, and the WMF statement on the Commons talk page describes the situation perfectly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Photo of hand-drawn chart from the 1960's, and a page from a book from the 20's

I have a few photos that I'd like to use to compare the types of symbols used in published knitting charts and demonstrate how they evolved over time. This is directly relevant to a section of the wiki page I am editing.

One photo is of a hand-drawn knitting chart created circa 1963. The hand-drawn chart was the basis for an eventual printed chart published sometime in the 1960's by Burda publishing (Germany). The man who drew the chart died in 1966. The photo shows just a part of the chart, not the whole thing, and the photo itself was not published by the company, just the pattern based on it.

Another is a photo of a printed page of a knitting chart published circa 1925 by Beyer publishing (now defunct) also in Germany.

Would these images be permissible to post to wikipedia? Teresacurl (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)