Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/April

Question about Fair Use image

Hi, thank you everyone ahead of time for taking a moment to help me out with this minor issue. I want to use some images taken at Clipperton Island for part of an expansion of the article. Since the island is in the middle of nowhere it's hard to find people who have gone out there and taken photos. I believe that an image like this would qualify under fair use but after re-reading all the guidelines (and coming off of a week of COVID) I'm not 100% sure and would really appreciate some guidance on this. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Dr vulpes, looking at the image you want to add and the images already in the article, my subjective view is that the new image doesn't add much, so IMO it fails WP:NFCCP#8. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I am afraid that the article isn't suffering from lacking such an image. And that per WP:NFCC#8 is an argument against having that image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

It's probably OK as fair use, but "fair use" and "non-free content use" aren't exactly the same when it comes to Wikipedia, and it's the latter that matters. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was established to be more restrictive than fair use as explained in WP:NFC#Background, and I too don't think the non-free use of the image you want to use would be justified per relevant policy, and least not without knowing much more about how you intend to use the image and how you would justify it per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, I'll just have to get a little more creative with my search. Again thank you for your time and insight into this matter it really means a lot to me. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

copyright tag question

HI, I am creating the wiki-page of a noted living artist, I am using images from his website, the images are owned by him and copyright of the photographer who is listed. What kind of copyright tag do I use? Thanks for your help, Best, Rodney RLaTou (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The use of non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. In the case of a living person, even if a free image does not currently exist, a free one could still be created. As such, the use of a non-free image in an article about a living person almost always fails to meet WP:NFCC#1, the criteria about replaceability. So it is very unlikely that the use of a non-free image for your article would be acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi RLaTou. Generally, the copyright holder of a photo is the person taking it, not the subject of the photo; however, if the photo is of someone else's copyrighted work, then there might be multiple copyrights involved: one for the photo and one for the photographed work. If, for example, you take a photo of this artist, you would be considered the copyright holder of that photo and you could upload it to Wikimedia Commons as your c:COM:Own work as explained in c:Commons:Licesning as long as you're willing to release the photo under a free license that Commons accepts. If the photo was taken by someone else, you can't upload the photo with getting the photographer's c:COM:CONSENT as explained here. If you take a photo of one of the artist's artworks, you would still own the copyright on the photo, but the artist would own the copyright on the artwork itself. In such a case, you couldn't upload your photo of the artwork to Commons without the artist's consent. Of course, whether the artwork is ever was eligible or is still eligible for copyright protection might depend on various factors (age of the work, where the work is installed, if the artist is deceased and how long ago they died, etc.), but generally it's best to assume the artwork is copyrighted at first and then work from there. In some cases, Wikipedia does allow photos of artwork to be uploaded locally as non-free content, but only when all the non-free content criteria mentioned above are met. Wikipedia, however, encourages us to try and keep non-free use a minimal as possible and not try and create a non-free image gallery of all the artist's artwork. Perhaps if there's one representative work that the artist is really known for that in its own right has received critical coverage in reliable sources because it illustrates the style the artist is known for, then that would be OK to upload as non-free content; however, a non-free image is not needed for each work mentioned in the article of each section of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your clarifications, that's super helpful!

I am creating an artist web page and have permission to use the photos from the artist's website. I will follow the links and continue as you suggest -

All the best

RLaTou RLaTou (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi RLaTou. I'm not sure what you mean by I am creating an artist web page. Was your above question about uploading and adding images to An Te Liu? For reference, Wikipedia articles are not "artist's webpages" in any way, shape or form. Neither "An Te Liu" nor anyone connected to them has any editorial control over the content of any content written about An Te Lie on Wikipedia. Moreover, if you're editing on An Te Liu's behalf, you really shouldn't be directly editing or creating any such content yourself as well. If you're connected to An Te Liu in some personal or professional way, have been in contact with them or their representatives and have been making edits on their behalf, I strongly suggest you take a close look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and make sure you familiarize yourself with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding such editing. I've added some more information about this to your user talk page as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

RLaTou, you uploaded these 3 files File:White Dwarf, 2012, An Te Liu.jpg, File:Title Deed, 2009, An Te Liu.jpg and File:Exhibition view, Mono No Ma, Gardiner Museum, Toronto, 2013.jpg as non free but with no permissions or licences. The artist's permission is required for any images of these works as is a freely licenced release of the photographer who took the specific images. Do these works still exist? In that case a new image can be created and released by someone else under a free licence we accept. ww2censor (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly Thanks for your message. Yes, my mistake, wrong terminology, it is of course a Wikipidia entry not an artist web page. I had written many years ago about An Te Liu and more recently had noticed he did not have a Wikipedia entry - it is not a paid contribution on behalf of the artist. The images are from the artist's web site. Do I have to contact the artist to find out if the works exist and if he allows images of them to be published on Wikipedia? Is it required to get permission from both owner and photographer of images? Thanks, RLatou RLaTou (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

RLaTou, Absolutely, yes. As the uploader the onus is on you to obtain the appropriate permissions which are unfortunately not necessarily possible in every case. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Marchjuly, I am working on the permissions and hope to clarify all the images on the An Te Liu wikipage very soon. Best, Rodney RLaTou (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for message and info. I am following up on the images in question. RLaTou (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I fear you may not understand, if the artist waives their copyright on those pictures, they are allowing commercial re-use and exploitation of them across the planet. There is no such thing as "permission to use the image in Wikipedia alone". --Orange Mike | Talk 12:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Public Domain Media by the National Park Service yet complicated stuff (in link with potentially adding a image to O-Six)

Hi, the image I would use is public domain but I can't find it outside of publications. Does a screenshot and proper crediting is correct and/or what can I do ?

The Initial discussion on the "public domain" part can be seen on the talk page of O-Six where I detailed my question and tried to answer myself with great detail and giving examples. Please read Talk:O-Six#Picture_of_832F to follow my reasoning and current problem (placing the whole text/reasoning here wouldn't be ideal). Thank you for your time and comprehension. - Gimly24 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Answered and resolved Gimly24 (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this 'CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License' allowed on Wikipedia?

Hello, In relation to File:Portrait of Jan Louise Murray Wade.jpg, is the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License allowed on Wikipedia? // GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Licenses that disallow derivatives, or disallow commercial use are not acceptable. WP:Free licenses provides a list of acceptable licenses. -- Whpq (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry into fair-use

In relation to File:Talip Yener's portrait.jpg, it is getting flagged under the pretext of: "This is an image of the Ismail Erez's driver so its stated purpose "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of their biographical article" is simply not true. Fails WP:NFCC#8".

First of all, Ismail Erez is irrelevant as the person in the photograph, Talip Yener, was assasinated as well during the same attack. This image, along with others in the same article, provides a visual representation of the individuals who were killed in political assasinations. The images provide readers an understanding of the impact of these assassinations and ensure that the victims are not reduced to just names on a list. Removing the portraits could detract from the significance of the article and fail to acknowledge the human toll of these violent acts.

What would an expert opinion in this case be? Katakana546 (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

We do not consider the emotive factor here ("ensure that the victims are not reduced to just names on a list.") But instead does the non free truly enhance the reader's comprehension the article. Just including a picture because they were part of an assassination doesn't fit nonfree allowance. ,--Masem (t) 21:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Photo of a billboard.

Hello, I have a photo of a politician's billboard. Is that allowed? ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 10:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi GMH Melbourne. Are you asking whether it's OK for you to have taken the photo or whether it's OK for you to upload the photo to Wikipedia? In the first case, most likely yes but there may be restrictions how you can reuse the photo depending upon the copyright laws of the country you live in or where the billboard is located. In the second case, you do own the copyright of the photo (if you took it yourself), but photographing the billboard wouldn't make you its copyright owner. Whether the photo is OK to upload to Wikipedia could depend on copyright laws of the country where the billboard is located and how complex it is. The shape of a typical billboard is generally not something considered eligible for copyright protection, but the ad or imagery appearing on the billboard may be. If it is, your photo would likely be considered a derivative work, which means it generally can't be uploaded to Wikipedia without the consent of the billboard's copyright holder due to type of licensing that Wikipedia uses for the content it hosts. Please understand this is a very general answer and it might be easier for someone to give you a more specific one if they knew more about the photo and how you're thinking of using it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Is this public domain rationale valid?

File:Barabba Eclisse 1961.jpg is tagged as public domain (and hosted at WP:Commons). The rationale is that it's a 1961 photograph from Italy and that this would make it public domain in Italy, but the copyright template also outlines some additional criteria that need to be fulfilled for it to be in the public domain in the US and it's not clear to me whether this is the case here. If it makes a difference, I think this is a production still from the set of Barabbas rather than a still frame from the film itself. I was hoping to be able to use this image for a future WP:DYK hook, so I figured I would ask here since I'm by no means a copyright expert and images on the WP:Main page need to be free. Thanks in advance! TompaDompa (talk) 07:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa: it looks like this complies with the US URAA 1996 requirement, so I've added the appropriate tag to the commons file. ww2censor (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Given explicit permission?

Hello. I am planning a draft on Luke Jerram's Glass microbiology sculptures. Given a lack of images (only two) on commons compared to the number of sculptures in the series, I contacted Jerram's studio in an attempt to upload files in commons through VRT. In the email discussion, they gave me explicit permission to use the images, but not for commercial purposes, hence I tagged the commons files for deletion under G7. As I'm a newbie to image copyright, what avenues are still open to have these images hosted on Wikipedia itself? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

We would still have to treat them as non-free images since they disallow commercial reuse, and under NFC rules, you can only have a few (one or two) non-free images if there are no suitable free images. As there are free images on commons, this likely precludes the use of any supplied images limited to non-commercial use. Masem (t) 12:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Masem, would it change anything if the non-free image depicts a collage of the sculptures? The other images only depict one sculptures each, while the non-free image I would want to upload would show 16. i.e They don't serve the same purpose. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

A collage would be considered multiple images even if they are in a single file. See WP:NFCC#3. Whpq (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, last try. @Masem and @Whpq, the other image is of three of the sculptures in a row, so not a collage. As it depicts these three sculptures instead of one, does this count as a different purpose, and can I use it? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Schminnte, but it does not matter what way you configure the non-free images; in a row, separately, in a collage, we can't use them when freely licenced images are available on the commons. Perhaps if you just very politely ask them to freely licence just one or two additional images, then they might reconsider. You can suggest that by sharing such images they are getting exposure. However, remember that photos of artistic works require permission of both the artist AND the photographer. ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll just leave it then, as they said that they would not licence any of the images for commercial use. Thanks for all your help everyone, I'll remember this for next time. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If the three sculptures in a row is provided by the copyright holder of the sculptures, that is actually fine as long as the ownership is clear on the file page rationale. We accept montages like.that as a long as its clear the copyright holder made it, rededucing X copyrights to 1. Masem (t) 17:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Masem, So would that image be accepted in accordance with the non-free rationale, as it illustrates multiple different sculptures? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Schminnte. Although your post was addressed to Masem, I hope you don't mind me jumping in. Masem can still respond if they want. Such a photo would most likely be OK per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#10a, but the non-free content use criteria would still need to be met per WP:JUSTONE; in other words, WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 probably would still be issues if the primary purpose of the collage was to show a representative example of the sculptures. If the three in the collage were somehow individually the subject of sourced critical commentary as either individual works (independent of the other sculptures) or as they appear in that particular collage photo, then that might be an argument in favor of the non-free use of the collage photo; however, even then that still might not be enough to establish a consensus for using such a photo if free images of some of the other sculptures are available. -- 20:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: it's fine. I'll leave this here. I was just thinking that some sort of collage would help to enhance understanding of the sculptures. This was my first time ever going near non-free images, so sorry for wasting everyone's time here! I'll remember all these points for the next time I have to deal with non-free files. Thanks all, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

hello

i made a page about lton towns u18,they have the same logo,how is it copyright? DimiLikesHistory (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi DimiLikesHistory. The reason why a bot removed the file you added to Luton Town U18 was because it didn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy with respect to that article. Each time a non-free file like File:LutonTownFC2009.png is used on any Wikipedia page, the use needs to satisfy all ten of the non-free content use criteria listed here. Since you added the file to the U18 article without adding a corresponding non-free use rationale to the file's page explaining why, the bot removed the file for not complying with non-free content use criterion #10c. This is why the bot keep leaving a link to WP:NFC#Implementation in edit summaries when it removed the file. Non-free files are required to have two things: (1) a non-free copyright license and (2) a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use. A non-free file pretty much only needs one non-free copyright license regardless of how many times it might be being used, but it does need to have a specific non-free use rationale for each of its uses. If it's missing a rationale for any particular use, it will be removed either by a bot or a human file reviewer.

Now, having posted all of that, there were actually more serious problems with the article you created that have nothing to do with the image you tried to add. Article about sports teams are, as explained here, required to satisfy Wikipedia's General Notability guideline for them to be considered acceptable. Generally, the way this is done is by supporting the article's content with citations that establish the teams has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Because the article you created did not clearly establish that the U18 is Wikipedia notable, a Wikipedia administrator named GiantSnowman redirected the article to Luton Town F.C.. For what it's worth, GiantSnowman is a very experienced Wikipedia editor when it comes to articles related to soccer (football), and I'm sure they would be happy to explain what kinds of things are typically considered significant coverage for a U18 team if you ask them. You can also ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Can screenshots of your own Minecraft builds be shared under CC licences?

If you went out of your way to use a freely-licensed resource pack and ensured that no natural MC terrain is visible (only your own build can be seen), could you release the screenshot under a CC licence, since you're essentially using MC as a 3D modelling program and you are not showing anything that is copyrighted by Mojang/Microsoft? Félix An (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Félix An I would say no. Even if you're not using specific graphics or sprites from Minecraft, the Minecraft IP itself, including its style, are still the intellectual property of Mojang. Even if you were to open up a 3D modelling program and create a Minecraft-style model, it would be infringement. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

But there is an open-source block-based sandbox game with a similar appearance to Minecraft. Félix An (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The JJMC89 bot removed 2 files from a page

The JJMC89 bot removed File:United_Right_Poland_logo.png and File:Logo_of_the_Law_and_Justice.svg from the 2020–2021 women's strike protests in Poland page because of WP:NFCC. Is it possible for bot to make a mistake or something is not right? If so, how can I add these images to the article? DerekTDR (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@DerekTDR please see the first paragraph in the section hello above. It's precisely the same situation and the bot is functioning correctly. Fair-use files like the two you are talking about need a separate rationale adding for each and every article it is desired to use them on. Nthep (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Should I use Template:Non-free use rationale logo on the file's page? Like on the bottom or top of the file's page? DerekTDR (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The use of non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. I don't see how WP:NFCC#8, the significant context, would be met by the addition of the logos. You used them in the infobox as logos to accompany the name of the organisation. The lack of these logos would no detract from reader's understanding of the topic. Their usage is essentially decorative. So even if you fill in a non-free usage rationale template to use in the protest article, I do not think that use would comply with non-free usage policy. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi DerekTDR. While I'm sure you couldn't have see Whpq's above reply before adding non-free rationales for "2020–2021 women's strike protests in Poland" to several non-free file pages like the two you mentioned above, there is pretty much zero chance that said type of non-free use would be considered acceptable per relevant Wikipedia policy. Non-free logos are simply never going to be allowed to be used as infobox icons per multiple WP:NFCCP. Adding the rationale does stop the bot from removing them, but it doesn't make the use a valid one per WP:JUSTONE. So, I removed the invalid rationales from the file's you added them too and also removed the files from the article. You can, of course, disagree with this assessment, and start a discussion about the files at WP:FFD if you want; however, once again, I don't see how a consensus will be established in favor of this type of non-free use. Lastly, one good thing was that some of the files you added rationales too actually don't need to be treated as non-free content by English Wikipedia. They are too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law even if they're still considered to be eligible for such protection under Poland's copyright laws. I converted these files' license to something more appropriate, and their use is no longer subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

So, how can I use these file? I tried to add templates on files' pages. It is so hard to do it and this is my first situation about it. I thought adding a template is enough. DerekTDR (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

You can't use them in that particular way in that article. Adding a non-free use rationale template to a file's page doesn't automatically make a particular non-free use compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. The other remaining non-free content use criteria still need to be satisfied, and there's really no way to justify using a non-free logo as an infobox icon per non-free content use criterion #1 (WP:FREER) and non-free content use criterion #8 (WP:NFC#CS). In fact, it could be argued that using freely licensed and public domain logo files in that particular way in that infobox doesn't comply with MOS:LOGO and MOS:INFOBOXFLAG since there's really no encyclopedic information gained by the reader from seeing them since they're essentially be used as "flag icons" for the various organizations listed in the infobox. The primary logos of said organizations can be seen by readers by clicking on the links and looking at the main article about each organization. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

After reading some "WP:" articles and your notifications of deletion, I understand kind of how it works. I do not understand WP:JUSTONE still. DerekTDR (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:JUSTONE is just the name of a short-cut link to the "Assuming that meeting only one criterion is sufficient" section of the page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions. A non-free use needs to satisfy all ten non-free content use criterion for it to be considered policy compliant. Adding a non-free use rationale to a file's page is one of the ten criteria (WP:NFCC#10c), but it's only just one of the ten (actually it's one part of one of the ten). This means that there are nine other criteria that still need to be satisfied, and failing to satisfy even just one of them means that the non-free use in question is not considered policy compliant (i.e. not a valid non-free use). Some users mistaknely think that adding a non-free use rationale takes care of everything else, but that's not the case at all. What the rationale does or is supposed to do is explain how a particular non-free use meets all ten non-free content use criteria given the way the content is being used. The rationale template is just a convenient way of adding such information to a file's page, but a template doesn't need to be used as long as the relevant information is added in some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Threshold of originality for fancy text?

I'm looking at File:95GMO WGMO-FM.png, which consists of the text "95 GMO" with some shadowing and shading effects. Is this potentially creative enough to be eligible for copyright in the US? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

FUR for living person?

Hi all, I'm not convinced by the fair use rationale at File:Jeremy Dewitte.jpeg, but don't know that much about image copyright. Could someone with more knowledge take a look? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not appropriate. The guy may be in and out of jail but a public image is still possible. Also the image of a guy in a helmet with no face visible is not really helpful for identifying a person. Masem (t) 23:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Masem, I've nominated for deletion at FfD Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Image taken from an historic document

I want to use an image taken from this historic document: https://archive.org/details/victoriahistoryo00doubuoft. The information (copyright-evidence) states "no visible notice of copyright". Can I upload it and use it in a Wikipedia article on this basis? Ceperman (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That was published in 1904 so you should be okay with licensing it as {{PD-US-expired}}. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

i´m not sure what i have to do, please send me an step by step manual

The uploaded maps and map details are all over 100 years old, but of course they are kept in some libraries, so I have also added their information in the text, but how, where and in what the way I add a "license tag" Unfortunately, it is not to understand, by the instructions only seems to be written for technicians. ;-((( at least I don't understand this. Maybe there are step-by-step instructions and a selection of the tag, normally I would have used the fair use tag, but which one is that???, although all the cards are more than 100 years old.??? ? Please help. Qanatir (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Qanatir Before this can all be sorted out, you need to be specific about the exact source of each map, not just, for example, "jewish national library" but a full url to the map so the background can be checked out. I suspect that most, if not all, are out of copyright but it needs a lot more detail to determine exactly why each is in the public domain and then tagged appropriately.

If you use the Wikipedia:File upload wizard for any future uploads it will guide you through the process and help you add appropriate information, not only about the copyright status, but also about the image, what it portrays etc. Nthep (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I rearranged the information on two of your uploads, File:03-Map by Burton and Drake 1871 with the two Trachones.jpg and File:00-kiepert-HAURAN-1860-k.jpg, and added the appropriate license tag, {{PD-old-100}}. Do you think, Qanatir, you could do the same for the remaining files? Felix QW (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Felix QW yes, many thanks, sorry for your time! But there are so many different licence tags i was not sure what was the right one. regards Qanatir (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I generated the request email for File:M87blackHoleAccretionDiskSharpenedByCorrelations-s800-c85.webp‎

The request is addressed to Lia Medeiros Ph.D., of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ: lia@ias.edu

The request is for an Attribution 4.0 International (CC-by-4.0) release for the image File:M87blackHoleAccretionDiskSharpenedByCorrelations-s800-c85.webp .

I used the relgen.js form; I hope the data went to the right place. If I need to fix something, please message me on en.wikipedia . I filled in the Commons:Email template; looking back, it looks unlikely that the email request went anywhere.

Lia Medeiros Ph.D. ( lia@ias.edu ) clearly indicated her intent in the NPR interview, that the image be propagated; could a volunteer on the Commons:Volunteer Response Team please pick up the ball from here?

-- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis: If you're seeking assistance from a Commons VRT member, you probably should post something at c:COM:VRTN. My understanding is that it's not part of a VRT member "job description" per se to directly contact copyright holders out of the blue to try and get their consent; that's the responsibility of the user who uploads the file. So, you can try emailing the copyright as explained in WP:PERMISSION or WP:ERFP and ask them to email their consent to VRT. There needs to be some way for VRT to verify (1) copyright ownership and (2) copyright owner consent, and verbal consent generally seems to not be considered acceptable. The copyright holder saying theshe wants the image to "be propagated" seem a bit vague and could mean something other than "freely reused by anyone anywhere for any purpose including commercial and derivative reuse". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis, the images in the NPR story come from an open access article in the Astrophysical Journal. The journal uses a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 license, see here, so it can be on our Commons. Add the license and use these sources to support it. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Question about copyright of images

I came to the article to fix a referencing error, and after some checking found that the missing source was this image from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The problem is that the reference is for this image, which is very similar to the one from the UNDP. I don't know how close images have to be to be a copyright issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The base maps and legends are different. The thing that is the same is the flood spots but those flood spots cannot be changed as they represent the flood data. -- Whpq (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

But is it infringing? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Fact can't be copyrighted and you really can't draw the zones elsewhere or make them different shapes without misrepresenting the data so I do not think this is infringing. -- Whpq (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Image for Template:Did you know nominations/John Green

Looking for some help with a situation involving a photo for the front page at Template:Did you know nominations/John Green.

The situation is as follows:

• The image is a screenshot of author John Green from a video he created on his Vlogbrothers YouTube channel. The video is explicitly marked Creative Commons. In the screenshot, John is holding a shirt with an image on it called "Pizza John".
• Pizza John is fan art created from a screenshot from this video by John Green (around 3:56) as detailed by this video from his brother Hank Green (around 1:40). The presumed copyright holder, the original fan who created the Pizza John image, has decided not to release Pizza John into CC after it was requested.
• This leaves the other option: determining if the art is not adequately transformative from John's video to entail a new copyrighted work. Since the image is just a filtered image from a video the John hold's the copyright to (+the word "Pizza"), it seems that perhaps the work is still under the same permissions as John's original video. If it is non-transformative, then the only hitch is that the video is not tagged as Creative Commons due to technical limitations, but the Green brothers have stated that all Vlogbrothers videos are CC.

Cerebral726 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-free content inquiry

Hi there. I'm writing a draft article for a now-deceased public figure. I found a contextually relevant portrait photograph of the figure that was published in a newspaper in 1978. Would this situation allow for the publication on Wikipedia of this photograph so long as the ownership be attributed to the photograph's owner? Thank you. Ormeos (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Non-free images of deceased individuals are generally allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as the use in question meets all ten of the non-free content use criteria. In most cases, this means that there are no free-equivalent images that can either be found or created per WP:NFCC#1 (WP:FREER). While it's true that a new photograph of a deceased person can't be taken, that doesn't preclude finding an already existing image that has already been released under an acceptable free license or could be released under an acceptable free license. As long as you've done a reasonable such for such an image, a non-free one should be OK. How "reasonable" depends on who you ask, but I would say it involves a bit more than a quick 5-minute Google search of "free image of Person X" and coming up empty. Some users will actually try to contact copyright holders to see whether they can obtain a free image that way. What you do is up to you, but you should be prepared to explain what you did if the validity of the non-free use ends up being challenged.

For reference, doing a Google image search of "Marvin Fishman" seems to come up with lots of potential images and it's possible that one of them might actually now be in the public domain. Prior to January 1, 1978, individually published photographs were required to have a visible copyright notice (somewhere on the photo,front or back) for the photograph to be considered copyrighted. Photos published in newspapers, however, usually lack such a notice but are instead covered by the copyright notice for the paper itself unless attributed to some other third-party. In addition to notices, copyrights also needed to be renewed after a certain number of years for them to avoid expiring. So, it's possible that there could be an old pre-1978 photo of Fishman floating around somewhere that might be {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}. Any photo published between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989 could also be within the public domain per {{PD-US-1989}}, but the conditions are slightly different since US copyright law was revised in 1977. Anything after March 1, 1989, almost certain is still copyrighted since US copyright law changed yet again in 1989 due to the US agreeing to participate in an international copyright treaty.

Finally, one thing about a non-free photo of a person is that it's almost always going to be considered unacceptable per FREER whenever a free equivalent image can be found to use instead, even if the free equivalent is of a lesser quality and shows the person at a different point in their life. You might want to ask about this or or this over at c:COM:VPC. Even though they're being sold on Ebay and have been watermarked, there doesn't appear to be a visible copyright notice on either the front or back of the photos. One photos seems to date back to 1973 and the other to 1969 which means they could be eligible for a "PD-US-no notice" license and thus OK to upload to Wikimedia Commons. Once uploaded, you can ask someone at c:COM:GL/P to clean up and perhaps even crop the photo if you want. The watermark is for the company selling the image and has nothing really to do with the original copyright holder of the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Images of paintings by deceased artist who used incorrect copyright permission name in 2007.

Dear friends

I would like to See the artist Samizu Matsuki's works once again visible on her wikipedia page. In 2007 Samizu Matsuki gave me permission to post 14 images of her photographs and paintings on wikipedia under a free license "GNU License Attribution 2.5". (See below emails) These would be made available on the Samizu Matsuki biographic entry on Wikipedia. An error in naming the free license under which her works were made available on wikipedia was not corrected - even after being notified and pictures removed. Samizu passed away on August 4, 1018 I would like to return her works and photos to wikipedia if there is a route to do so Ron Huber

---

Forwarded message ----------

From: Samizu Matsuki < samizu.matsuki@gmail.com> Date: Oct 25, 2007 12:33 PM Subject: WIKI license for images - Samizu Matsuki To: --------@gmail.com

Dear Ron

I am pleased that you are posting images of my paintings and photographs on Wikipedia. Below is my permission according to the format requested.

Samizu Matsuki

---

To whom it may concern at Wikipedia

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following photographs and paintings. My California photo ID 1982 is public domain. News clipping 1978 from Oregon newspaper Gazette Times.

Photographs

Samizu Matsuki, 23 years old, Tokyo 1959. I cut my picture out from a group photo of teachers at the National Museum, Tokyo. 1959. http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu_teacher_23yo1959.jpg

Samizu Matsuki, in another group photo of Japanese junior high school teachers, Tokyo, 1960. http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu_shimura_daisan_jrhighsch_tokyo_1960.jpg

Samizu Matsuki, on boardwalk at beach on Long Island, New York, 1976.

http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu_longislnybeach76.jpg

"Artist Moonlights with Mop" photograph while working at Oregon State University Oregon. From Gazette-Times newspaper article. 1978

http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu_osu_custod_1979.jpg

Samizu Matsuki California photo ID 1982

http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu_cal_license82.jpg

Samizu Matsuki in home studio, Rockland, Maine, 2006

http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu2006_maine_hochepntg.jpg

Painting Images.

Triumphant Return http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/triumphal_return.jpg

A Celebrator http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/celebrator.jpg

"Ah!" http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/ah.jpg

"Still Life" http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/still_life.jpg

"Barbara and the Fortuneteller"

http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/barbarafortuneteller01.jpg 

"__opia!" http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/opia.jpg

"Blue Ghost" http://penbay.org/samizu/artwork/paintings/blue_ghost.jpg

"Self Portrait, 1970" http://penbay.org/samizu/photos/samizu_longislnybeach73.jpg

I agree to publish these works under the free license GNU License Attribution 2.5.

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the works in a commercial product, and to modify them according to their needs.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my works, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the works will not be attributed to me

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the images may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

October 25, 2007

Samizu Matsuki

-- Samizu Matsuki xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Rockland Maine 04841

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
----------@gmail.com 

-- END FORWARDED EM Ron Huber (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you ever forward the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org ? If you post text here, no one can tell if it genuine or fabricated. Perhaps the message can be verified by the volunteers, and then images restored. Photographs of her will not be releaseable this way as she did not own copyright on them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hand-drawn dungeon map from computer game

Is this type of map, hand-drawn by me, acceptable under a public domain or Creative Commons license? I drew a map of a dungeon level for the article on The Bard's Tale II, but am unsure about it since it draws from a copyrighted game.

I have not posted my map yet. It's a hand-drawn version of this map online, which appears hand-drawn in various online walkthroughs as well.

The image of the one I drew did not draw from these or any published map and is a bit more artistic—a diagonal close-up of part of the map on bent graph paper with different symbols for doors and objects, and a highlighted portion. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• If the map is essentially a copy of an in-game element, then the map is the property of the original creators. Making a copy doesn't transfer rights. If it's not a copy of an in-game element, then it wouldn't have any business being on an article about the game. So, it's kinda pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Hammersoft. It's not a copy of the game map. There is no game map for this level from the publisher. It's just what someone draws while exploring the level. The game's player's manual does have an image of a map of one of the dungeon levels, but it's just one of many as an example. The one I drew is not that level.

Perhaps we're saying the same thing though. Airborne84 (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If it isn't a copy of something, it is WP:OR, and doesn't belong in an article anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

But you could release this under a free license of your choice to place on commons for use on Wikisource or some other project. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

About Promotional Photos

I was editing and taking care of pages related to World Baseball Classic , i noticied that the trophy put in the page was not updated for the 2023 version, but the only good photo closest to free use of the updated trophy is from a promotional photo shoot took by tournament and the makers of the trophy

Is this type of material (Promotional material promoting the upgrade of the trophy) allowed for multiple articles about the trophy? Meganinja202 (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it is clearly marked all rights reserved, so it is fair use only, and we attempt to minimise the use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Image from a video and I am not sure if it is copyrighted

Hello,

I want to upload a head-cropped image for Arthur D. Levinson from this video at 3:03 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJw4LaxG8Uw&ab_channel=NSTMF. I do not know where this image comes from. How can I find out where this image comes from? Homeostasis39 (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Homeostasis39 (talk) 11:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Homeostasis39 a quick Google image search throws up several uses of that headshot. However from my brief look, none of these appear to be licensed in a way compatible with use on Wikipedia. There would not be much purpose in uploading the image under the non-free content criteria as it will fall foul of criteria 1 in that a free alternative can be found, or be created. Nthep (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you know where I can find free alternatives for someone like Arthur D. Levinson? Homeostasis39 (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You can attend a public event where Levinson is speaking, and take a photo of him there. I have done that several times. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Unsure of copyright status

Hi, I uploaded this file File:2014-07-08 IQ Leavy 01.jpg on the page of sportswriter Jane Leavy. However, I am unsure of its copyright status as I downloaded it from the internet. I don't know when the image was taken but it was before 2014.

This is the first time I've attempted to upload an image so I would really like some help in navigating how to do so exactly. If I have to remove it, please tell me how so I can find a suitable alternate.

Also I would like to mention that the Commons Wikimedia website does not work in my country so please keep that in mind when answering this inquiry. Thank you. All The Knowledge in the World (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@All The Knowledge in the World Sorry but I've deleted the image as a copyright violation. If further information says I was wrong I will happily restore the image but as it stands you assigned a licence to the image that is completely lacking in evidence that the photographer (who owns the copyright) has given such a permission - especially this one which is the the most open licence that can be given.

In most countries assignment of copyright is automatic on creation of the image and I suspect that you have fallen into the trap of assuming that because an image is on the internet, that it's in the public domain. That's not the case and re-use is going to be closely controlled. Unless an image carries an explicit statement about re-use always assume it is copyrighted and re-use is limited/not available.

I'm not being critical of what you've done as it is a very complicated area and you aren't the first and won't be the last to misunderstand things. The deletion is to a) protect the rights of the photographer and b) to protect Wikipedia's reputation.

So how to progress?

1. Look for other images of Leavy and see what they say about re-use. For Wikipedia purposes you're looking for the right to reuse, for any purpose, by anyone including commercial re-use. Preferably using a Creative Commons licence. For example there is a high-res image of her on her own website [1] but it lacks any statement about conditions of re-use so it's no good to us.
2. Contact the photographer to see if they have an image of Leavy that they are prepared to release under a suitable Creative Commons licence.
3. Take an image of Leavy yourself (I accept this isn't necessarily possible, I just include it as an option) and licence it appropriately.

Nthep (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with the deleting of the image as I was trying to remove it myself upon realizing it was probably copyrighted. This was my first attempt at uploading an image and I was unsure how to go about doing so. Thank you very much for all the instructions. All The Knowledge in the World (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)