Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2024/September

Copyright status of U.S. state manuals

Hello. I would like to use the official images of state officials from state manuals such as the ones here or the ones here. However, I couldn't find anything about the copyright status. I was wondering if someone could help me find a way to figure out the status of these works and whether I could use them without violating copyright law. I appreciate any help I can get. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi FountofInterestingInfo. There's some information on this in WP:PD#US government works. In principle, any creative work released by a government entity below the non-federal level in the US is presumed to be protected by copyright except in cases where state or local laws/statutes designate them to be within the public domain. I can currently think of only two states (Florida and California) which have declared works created by government employees at the state, county and municipal levels to be within the public domain, but there are exceptions for certain departments and certain entities. There are some other states who might be close to that, but Florida and California seem to be the only two that Wikipedia and Commons treat as such. There some more information about this on Harvard's State Copyright page, but it's probably best to assume anything first published after March 1, 1989, is going to be protected by copyright and then try to find something that clearly states it isn't. The copyright status of older materials published before that date is a bit more complicated because US copyright law was different back then and there were certain requirements in effect that no longer apply. There is a sort of summary on them found at c:COM:HIRTLE. It's possible some of the older legislative manuals you've linked to above could be within the public domain not because they're official state publications, but for other reasons related to copyright formalities; those, however, probably would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. If you have a particular issue of one of those in mind, it might be better to ask about it at c:COM:VPC. One thing to be carful about, particularly when it comes images used in official publications regardless of time period, is that sometimes they were contracted out to a third-party and not taken by a government employee. If that's the case, the government could've entered into a work for hire arrangement and obtained full copyright ownership over the photo, or the third-party could've retained some rights. This can further complicate things because those rights need to also be sorted out. Finally, if some of the photos you want to used are of deceased individuals and you want to use them for primary identification purposes either at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone Wikipedia articles about these people, then non-free content might be an option, but the uses need to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- 23:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you! FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

As an example, material in the 1985 South Dakota legislative manual should be in the public domain since it was printed and sold to the public without a copyright statement and has not been registered for copyright according to a search in the US copyright catalogue. Felix QW (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Since several figures photographed in this publication are still without a picture, I uploaded the 1985 South Dakota Blue Book to Commons here: Commons:File:Legislative Manual, South Dakota 1985.pdf.

Images can then also be extracted using the CropTool, and any image taken from the manual can then be connected to it as an extracted image.

See this example: Commons:File:Leonard E Andera.jpeg. Felix QW (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 files

I've always found {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} to be an odd license that tends to be used by individuals who just want to upload content but who don't have any clue about the content's copyright status. To me it seems like a CC version of {{PD-because}} that's used to try and cover every possibility because none of the better defined copyright license seem to work or because the uploader assumes everything should be OK to upload to Wikipedia. FWIW, there are probably some valid uses for the license, but lhe license is being used on everything from logos, maps, product photos, Wikipedia screenshots, billboards, graphics, etc. Just clicking on a few of the files in Category:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 files (there are more than 200), finds pretty much no information about the provenance of the content other than perhaps a claim of "own work" or a brief description. The category was created in 2016 but a form of the license dates back to 2007. Does anyone who might've been around back then remember any discussion about this license and perhaps why it was needed? Does anyone know whether the category is regularly monitored? It might be a good idea for one or more to go through this category and try to sort things out: relicense what can be relicensed and tag/nominate for deletion/discussion those that are in need of further attention. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to look through the files using that tag and nominate the more egregious cases for discussion. As it allows reuse under each one of those versions of the CC-BY-SA license, this license actually requires more license releases than any individually versioned CC-BY-SA license, so as far as I can see it should really only be used on own work or where this particular license combination is explicitly indicated at the source. Felix QW (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Feastogether brand logos and threshold of originality

I cross-posted this to commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

Feastogether is a Taiwanese company, meaning the applicable copyright rule for threshold of originality is commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan#Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan. The page says, "Note that any work originating in Taiwan must be in the public domain, or available under a free license, in both Taiwan and the United States before it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons."

1. I plan to upload Feastogether brand logos that are in the public domain in both Taiwan and the United States to Wikimedia Commons.
2. I plan to upload Feastogether brand logos that are in the public domain in the United States but not in Taiwan to the English Wikipedia.

Which of the Feastogether brand logos in https://www.ieatogether.com.tw/admin/upload/website/kv/20240430114655_PC-KV.jpg^{Internet Archive} (linked from here^{Internet Archive} and also available at https://eatogo.com.tw/zh-TW^{Internet Archive}) meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan? Which meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan but not the United States?

Here is my assessment:

1. A Joy (Chinese: 饗A Joy): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
2. Inparadise (Chinese: 饗饗): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
3. Sunrise (Chinese: 旭集和食集錦): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
4. Eat Together (Chinese: 饗食天堂): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the blue-green drawing at the top.
   • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
5. Fruitful Food (Chinese: 果然匯): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the plant drawing at the top.
   • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
6. Little Fuli Spicy Hot Pot (Chinese: 小福利麻辣鍋): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.
7. Kaifun Together (Chinese: 開飯川食堂): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the pepper drawings at the top.
   • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
8. Siam More (Chinese: 饗泰多): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only Chinese and English characters. However, I am uncertain because the "Siam More" part of the logo uses script that appears like an elephant. Is this enough to make it meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan?
   • Can upload to English Wikipedia. But can I upload it to Wikimedia Commons?
9. Zhiyun (Chinese: 旨醞): The logo does meet the threshold of originality in both Taiwan and the United States because of the pink and green drawings at the top.
   • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
10. Doricious (Chinese: 朵頤餐廳): The logo does meet the threshold of originality because of the illustration at the top.
    • Cannot upload to Wikimedia Commons or the English Wikipedia.
11. Feastogether Corporation (Chinese: 饗賓餐旅事業): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
    • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Here is another brand logo from https://eatathome.hoyastore.com/uploads/images/202303/4f941f99ca0585f0d058e3cc2c340002.png^{Internet Archive} (linked from here^{Internet Archive}).

1. Eat@home (Chinese: 饗在家): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Here is another brand logo from https://web.archive.org/web/20160322003020im_/http://dacoz.com.tw/images/logo.png (linked from here):

1. Dacoz (Chinese: 大口吃): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and Chinese and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Here is another brand logo from https://play-lh.googleusercontent.com/bRVFib-dahozjAjk5gcQgh1zsZ09AlAtI-h3b4vIWY0FBVR-vc0FVasZ3kXhJ2ML5z4=w480-h960-rw^{Internet Archive} (linked from here^{Internet Archive}).

1. iEat (Chinese: iEAT饗愛吃): The logo does not meet the threshold of originality in Taiwan or the United States because it contains only shapes and English characters.
   • Can upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Positron and other CartoDB themes

This case seems straightforward to me, but I haven't seen anyone use these maps on Wikipedia/Commons, which makes me wonder.

I would like to use CartoDB's themes for maps, especially the neutral theme called Positron. It looks like all maps are under CC-BY 3.0,[1] while Positron has a separate repo under CC-BY 4.0.[2]

Does anyone know if creating a map with Positron in the background will never include graphical elements that aren't part of Positron? Are there examples on Commons that use this CartoDB/OSM theme?

Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Galleries galore!

Nick in the Afternoon needs a lot of gallery as a sample of galleries in pages that can't be empty every time and it's nothing to violate. 2601:447:C600:4840:14C4:AE32:4462:2D8E (talk) 23:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

It only needs a gallery if the images are relevant AND meet the non-free content criteria. You've been adding images which don't meet the criteria - which is why they've been removed. Nthep (talk) 06:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The gallery has to be helped instead of removed. 2601:447:C600:4840:20A6:1555:99E2:3A9D (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-free content, in principle, isn't allowed to be used in galleries per WP:NFG; so, there's really no way to "help" a gallery that doesn't comply with relevnt policy to begin with. Moreover, former non-free images need to meet WP:NFC#cite_note-4 for their use to be policy compliant; so, simply moving the former logos from a gallery to in-body doesn't necessarily make their use policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

United airlines globe logo 2010-present day

I want to ask a question if it is alright with you. So how do I get a photo to be implemented into a non-free content rationale and copyright free? I read the article on how to do it in the templates but it is still very confusing. So under the brand history I want to use the current log and say 2010-present next to the old one to compare and contrast the past to now in the branding history section of the History of United Airlines article. Thanks Gymrat16 (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You can't make something "copyrght free", unless you happen to be its copyright holder and want to give up your rights to it. With logos, its best to assume that they're protected by copyright unless it can clearly be shown otherwise. For example, a logo may be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection as explained in threshold of originality, but this "threshold" isn't the same for all countries. This can sometimes be a tricky thing to assess, and it's probably better to ask about a specific logo here at WP:MCQ or perhaps at c:COM:VPC when you're not sure.

FWIW, there are four logo files used in the History of United Airlines#Brand history article that are all Wikimedia Commons files (which I strongly suspect are incorrectly licensed and may even need to be deleted); so, they can technically be used in United Airlines#Brand image, but there's really no encyclopedic need to do so (regardless of how the logos are licensed) in my opinion because there's a WP:HATNOTE linking to the "History" article where they can be seen. My guess is that's where a WP:CONSENSUS has established they should be. You could try starting a discussion about this on Talk:United Airlines to see what others think, but it seems to best place to make such a visual comparison would be (again in my opinion) in the "History" article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

alright man thanks ill take time to fully process it cause ill admit it is difficult to when you only read words it is so much easier when people are in person but ofc we come from all over the world so the odds of in person meetings just aren't likely lol Gymrat16 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Persée

Hello, what is the copyright situation of articles that were uploaded to Persée site? Can I take an image from an article and upload it to Commons?

I'm asking because I want to upload the cylinder seal that appears here Pl. XV (an article in Syria by André Parrot, appears also here), but I would also like to get a more general answer about this website since I often find there images that can contribute to Wikipedia articles. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 16:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

If you are planning to upload to Commons, then it would be best to ask on Commons at c:COM:VPC. I will note that the site's Terms & Conditions state that the material is to be used only for strictly non-commercial and/or non-profit purposes which is insufficiently free for Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Just going to add that such licensing is also too restrictive for Commons per c:COM:LJ. Sometimes files licensed as such can be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content, but each use of the file would need to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type per c:COM:FAIR; so, don't try to upload such content there. Finally, one possibility to consider could be whether the photos you want to upload might not already be within the public domain per c:COM:FRANCE. The Syria article you linked to above was first published in 1954, which is probably when any copyright on its contents went into affect. The fact that Persée digitalized the article and reposted it on its website doesn't necessarily mean that the copyright timer reset back to zero and that makes it the copyright holder of the article/photos. I'd imagine that would be Parrot in both cases, assuming he took the photos. Given that Parrot died in 1980 and that France at the time had followed a principle of 50 p.m.a at that time, they might still not be in the public domain for a few more years; it wouldn't, however, hurt to ask about that at Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC); post copy edited. -- 02:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Whpq and Marchjuly! Marchjuly, I think you are right, but it indeed won't hurt to ask on Commons. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 16:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

1947 book

(I could try and work this out for myself, but it is important to get this right, so I have gone straight to asking here.)
I have a book published in the UK in 1947 that contains a large number of useful diagrams/plans (of ships of varying sorts) and photographs. It is Duckworth, A.D., ed. (1947). Transactions of the Institution of Naval Architects. London, England: Institution of Naval Architects.. An example chapter is written by R Baker and reports on a paper presented on 24 Sept 1946. It seems highly likely that R Baker is the person who drew the diagrams. The same author contributed a chapter on a paper presented on 27 March 1947. It appears that he is Sir Rowland Baker (1908-1983), as per the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography[3].

What is the copyright position of these diagrams and photographs, given that this book was published nearly 77 years ago and that the author of the two chapters mentioned died in 1983? ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It is possible that the diagrams and photographs arose by virtue of Rowland Baker's employment by the British government/Admiralty. See the ODNB entry for more information on this. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired Looking at the ONDB entry it seems that his drawings on military vessels will be covered by Crown Copyright by virtue of his employment as a civil servant [4] and having been published in 1947 are reproducible here (or Commons) using {{PD-UKGov}}. His later work for the Canadian government is also covered by Crown Copyright ({{PD-Canada-Crown}}). Nthep (talk) 10:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This blurb[5] for a book on Amazon rather seems to confirm the status of this work as part of his role as a government employee. I would not normally rely on a blurb written for a book, but the book is written by the biographer who wrote the ODNB entry, so perhaps he is the originator of what we see on Amazon. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 10:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks pretty conclusive that Crown Copyright does apply then. Nthep (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Link to single YT video?

I.e. per the "External media" template. Specifically this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHGPj47k-K0

(a) Would this be acceptable? (b) If not, what could I do to make it so? (*emailing the channel owner etc.) (c) I assume one cannot include a still from the video under any circumstances? Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Linking to media does not raise copyright questions, since there is no copying. Now, there is of course still the question of appropriateness and relevance (we of course don't want articles to just turn into a collection of links to YouTube or other external media sources, so is this video really so critical to understanding some given topic that it merits such a link? Why is it necessary to link to the video in the article itself instead of citing it as a reference?), but questions like that are outside the scope of this board. You are correct that the moment you begin to copy anything into an article, such as a still frame from the video, then you are getting into the question of using nonfree content as well, and since that would almost always just be decorative, the answer to that would generally be "No". But just a link does not raise any copyright concerns; copyright only applies when you copy something, not just when you point it out. (As an aside, and again beyond scope here, but that's just a guy chattering on camera, so I don't see where using an external link in an actual article would merit inclusion in an article. At most, if you intend to use something he says there in the manner of a self-published source, cite it as a reference for that instead.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, depending on what it is recording the copyright compliance of the video might be in question. See WP:COPYVIOEL. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know. Consider me archived. :) Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Sigh

I think the answer is no, but I'm hoping to be surprised. Is there any possible rationale for using one of the maps from this Atlas of the historical geography of the United States (1932) that's been published on IA and BHL under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International)?

I'd like to use "Slaves, 1800, per cent of slaves in total population" from Plate 67 on Andrew Jackson and the slave trade in the United States. This atlas is still in copyright per its info pages on BHL (and IA). "In copyright. Digitized with permission of rights holder Carnegie Institution for Science."

Thanks in advance for any possible brainstorms! jengod (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Jengod Per Commons:Hirtle chart 1929 through 1963, > Copyright_renewal_in_the_United_States#Determining_whether_a_US_copyright_was_renewed > No results found for your search, you might actually be good to go. Ping @Jmabel for a second opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

jengod: If you are going to use that image, I suggest you first look at the files listed further down the righthand side of the page and select the "SHOW ALL" near the bottom. From there select the (Show Contents) of the JP2.zip file and that brings up a list of all the single pages. The one you need is 287. When it's downloaded you need to save that one page as a jpg or png file because the jp2000 is not compatible with wikimedia. Crop as required and then upload it in the usual way because those images have a much higher resolution then using the image from the pdf. Sorry for the long winded explanation but the complete 400+Mb files would not download without an error. ww2censor (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You guys ROCK. I'm gonna do a little more copyright research but fingers crossed. TY @Gråbergs Gråa Sång@Ww2censor jengod (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ww2censor BTW This is a great explanation and I never know this before and not knowing this is why I have a lot of whole books saved on my phone LOL. TY!! jengod (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I did more digging and not only is it not in the Stanford DB there's a full copy in HathiTrust that's listed as PD so whoo! Thanks team.

Resolved

jengod (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Possibly free book covers

Any opinions as to whether the rose-like bordered square in File:Suspect (play).png would be enough to push this above c:COM:TOO United States.

What about File:Number, The Language of Science.png and File:Number Theory An Approach Through History from Hammurapi to Legendre.png? In the first case, the only thing that seems copyrightable is the stamp, but that doesn't appear to be part of the original cover art. In the second case, only the flower-like center element looks to be eligible for copyright protection, but that actually seems quite standard and non-creative. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Is surveillance camera footage public domain in Lebanon?

Is this video in the public domain? (for usage on 2024 Lebanon pager explosions) FunLater (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Looks like someone is recording the CC-TV video with some kind of handheld camera. Not sure if this affects copyright or not. - Sebbog13 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This should not affect the copyright, as since the only intention of the recording is to capture the CCTV video itself, the recording is entirely a derivative work, similar to commons:Template:PD-Art. Sdkb ^talk 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Like many things in Lebanon, the legal status of CCTV footage and its public accessibility is not clearly defined, leading to ambiguity regarding whether such footage is considered public domain. The Electronic Transactions and Personal Data Law (Law No. 81) provides some protections for personal data but does not address the public's right to freely publish CCTV footage. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking into it, and taking into account Prodrummer's comment above, it seems we can probably use it tagged with commons:Template:PD-Automated. I've uploaded it at File:CCTV video of pager explosion in a Beirut market.webm. Sdkb ^talk 15:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks! FunLater (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Images removed from List of ocean liners

A bot has removed 2 images from the list of ocean liners. Both of these images are used in the pages for the respective ships. What's the issue here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Those were not free-to-use images and were used under fair use only. There was no fair use rationale (FUR) for that page, so the bot remove the use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In addition, non-free images are pretty much never allowed to be used to illustrate individual entries of list articles per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES. So, adding a non-free use rationale to each file's page for its use in that particular article will likely stop the bot, but it won't make the use Wikipedia non-free content use policy compliant, and they'll still likely be removed via WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

HGTV logo - threshold of originality

File:HGTV Canada.png is currently tagged as non-free, but had a notice placed on it in 2023 flagging it as needing review for a free license. A long-term paid editor has been using IP sockpuppets to try to replace it with File:HGTV Canada logo.png, which they uploaded to Commons and tagged as not meeting the threshold of originality for copyright. I have been blocking the socks but they may be correct about the logo's copyright status: it is a common typeface and simple shapes other than a maple leaf. If the logo is copyright-free, what's the right procedure to replace it? Can the original file simply be tagged and transferred to Commons, or does a new file need to be uploaded? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: If the Commons file is kept, then you can simply replace the local file with the Commons file; the local file will then most likely end up deleted per WP:F5. You could also tag the local file for speedy deletion per WP:F8 if you want as long as it qualifies. If the Commons file isn't kept, then you can just keep treating the local file as non-free or perhaps argue that it should be relicensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} if the reason it isn't kept is because it's still protected in Canada even though its PD in the US. For reference, c:COM:TOO Canada and c:COM:TOO US are pretty close, and the three individual elements of the logo seem (IMO) to be ineligible for copyright protection on the own. The question is then whether combined together they're eligible for copyright protection as a set. I would say no given c:Category:Maple leaves in logos of Canada, but others on Commons might feel differently. As for the socking, that's not really related to image copyright and you take care of that just like you would with any other socking; moreover, the Commons DR won't care about the socking here on Wikipedia if the image is OK to host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Keep_local#RfC:_Limit_usage_of_this_template_to_files_which_are_fully_or_partly_own_work for your input. Thanks, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Mavis Wheeler

Hi - I've written an article about Draft: Mavis Wheeler, which is waiting for review. I'd like to add some images, but I'm not sure how to do this. I've identified a photo and a painting which I think are OK in terms of licensing, but it would be great if someone could confirm this. One is this photo (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image/?mkey=mw52747) which I've downloaded. The painting is this one (https://www.wikiart.org/en/augustus-john/mavis-wheeler-1945). It would be helpful if someone could guide me through the process. Thanks in advance. Blackballnz (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Blackballnz: Just for refrence, adding images to your draft will not impact whether it's ultimately accepted in any way; so, perhaps it might be best to wait until after the draft has been approved before worrying about images. If you still feel the need to add images to the draft, you can only use freely licensed or public domain images at this point because non-free content can't be used in drafts. The Wikiart painting you linked to described at "fair use", which means that it seems it's going to need to be treated as non-free content for Wikipedia purposes. If you want to know whether it's truly "fair use" and still under copyright protection, though, you will need to learn more about its provenance. Assuming that the work originated in the UK and given the Wheeler died in 1970 according to your draft, the painting is most likely still under copyright protection until January 1, 2041, per c:COM:UK because the UK extends copyright protection for 70 years post mortem auctoris, but you might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC.

The copyright ownership of the image of Wheeler herself is claimed by the National Portrait Gallery, London; however, whether that's really the case is unclear because the NPG has in the past tried to claim copyright over public domain works it has digitalized, but this wasn't considered a valid claim by either the Wikimedia Foundation or courts in both the US and UK. So, whether that photo needs to be treated as non-free content depends on its "real" provenance since it almost certainly isn't an original work created by the NPG. If the original photo either was never registered for copyright protection or its copyright protection has expired (or wasn't formally renewed), the photo could be in the public domain regardless of what the NPG is claiming. If, for example, the "author" of the photo is anonymous and the photo was first "published" in 1939, it seems like it would've entered into the public domain on January 1, 2010. If the "author" is known, it would enter into the public domain 70 years post mortem auctoris. This too is probably something you should ask about at COM:VPC.

If it turns out that both photos are still under copyright protection and need to be treated as non-free content, uploading them now will only lead to their speedy deletion. So, once the draft has been approved as an article, you can either come back here or go to WT:NFCC and ask about them again.

Finally, and this is unrelated to image copyright, you're aware of Anthony Vivian, 5th Baron Vivian#Mavis Wheeler, right? I'm only bringing this up because if Wheeler's primary claim to Wikipedia notability is her shooting of Vivian, then there might not be a strong justification for a stand-alone article about her per WP:ONEEVENT. Your draft is essentially a WP:SPLIT/WP:SPINOFF from the Vivian article; so, you might want to propose doing so at Talk:Anthony Vivian, 5th Baron Vivian to see what others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, it's far more complicated than I expected. I'll take your advice and leave the images for now, until I hear whether my draft is accepted. I agree that Wheeler's primary claim to notability is her shooting of Vivian, but there are also other aspects to her which I've outlined. I'll also post on the Talk:Anthony Vivian, 5th Baron Vivian page. Blackballnz (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Case Unclosed title card.jpg

Any opinions on whether the updated version of File:Case Unclosed title card.jpg needs to remain licensed as non-free? The originally uploaded version certainly did, and it should be deleted per WP:F5, but the update version seems simple enough for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO US even if it's still protected per c:COM:TOO Philippines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Mustang_Challenge_2024_logo.jpg

I was using this logo File:Mustang_Challenge_2024_logo.jpg in the article Mustang Challenge. The JJMC89 bot removed it as a violation. Wasn't clear why. I did clean up the info attached to the image. So maybe it's OK? Did not want to revert the deletion without understanding better.

Thx.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You identified your error and changed the article you want to use the image in. The issue now, and this isn't a bot issue, is that you have already added one non-free image File:Mustang Challenge logo.png) to Mustang Challenge and now you want to add a second. That's falling foul of WP:NFCC#3a (minimal use of non-free material). You need to come up with a compelling rationale as to why the second image adds significant additional information, and isn't just decorative material. Nthep (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, the two logos identify separate things: the competition series and one year's event. I could, of course, create a separate article for each. But for now there isn't enough content to justify separate articles, IMHO. So ... is the argument that every time such a situation occurs we have to split the articles?

-- MC 47.220.5.216 (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The argument is that non-free use is to kept as minimal as possible; in other words, a new article shouldn't be created just to so a non-free image can be used there, but should be created because the subject is Wikipedia notable regardless of whether it includes any images. The single use of a non-free image in any article is already considered quite an exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and can be fairly hard to justify; so, the use of additional non-free images or additional uses of the same non-free image is seen as being even more exceptional and even harder to justify. In my opinion, I think you're going to be hard pressed to establish a consensus at WP:FFD in favor of using any non-free image in Mustang Challenge#2024 competition unless you're able to find quite a bit of sourced critical commentary about the logo itself (its creation, design, meaning, etc.) and add that content to the article. If whatever you try to add about the logo to the article can just as easily be understood by readers without seeing the logo, then its use most likely would be seen as failing WP:NFC#CS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the logic, but whatever the consensus is I'll follow. Ultimately you can follow any topic without a logo showing at all. The whole point of showing any logo is just so the reader can quickly identify the subject being discussed. Ultimately one has to decide if that is an appropriate justification or not. I'm not a lawyer so I cannot say. But I don't follow the logic in saying there is a maximum number of logos in an article (other than zero). That would depend on the specific topic and sub-topics (though I certainly understand the wisdom in suggesting thinking carefully about using multiple logos).

Anyway, thanks.

-- Mcorazao (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mcorazao it gets complicated but behind it all is Wikipedia's stated purpose of being free and reusable. Non-free content isn't reusable so the policy is deliberately restrictive to keep the amount of non-free content down. The English Wikipedia follows that policy, others don't and simply do not allow any non-free content. Nthep (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

A radon picture I found

I found a picture of radon and was wondering if it was copyrighted or not. The website itself is quite empty and doesn't have any information about the licensing of it's pictures. HAt 09:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The image seems to come from a 1965 publication, so if that book was published with copyright notice, it will sadly still be in copyright for a long time to come. Felix QW (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Although, unlike the references page at the image source, our Wikipedia page on the series actually dates it to 1963. This would means that it would have to have had its copyright renewed to still be in copyright. In fact, however, there is a renewal entry for Some photographic & illustrative material prev. pub. in Life magazine" under the title of the book, Matter, by the book's publisher, Time Life. So it seems it is indeed protected by copyright until 2058 inclusive. Felix QW (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

See you in 34 years! HAt 12:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Radon is a colorless and odorless gas. So it's tricky to take a picture of it? Might explain why there's no image currently in the infobox. But oxygen, argon and of course neon all have one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Then take one. HAt 13:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah right. If I see some, I'll try and get one on my mobile. Anyone got any holiday snaps of xenon?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I have "seen" krypton first-hand in the sense of seeing the colour from electric discharge, but not xenon. Radon would be harder to find in any visible form. :D Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyways, argon and neon have picture because this is the plasma form. HAt 13:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

In this picture, you are not actually seeing radon itself (because it's colourless); instead you are seeing the resulting radioluminescence. Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Just like at all the other noble photos? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. The other noble gases are not radioactive, so the colour there has to do with light emission by electrons dropping down to the lowest energy state. Not so for the radon picture. Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It's still the closest thing to picture of radon though right? HAt 12:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose so, but since radon is not actually visible in it, and nothing actually unique to Rn is visible, I'm not precisely convinced. If only there had been some kind of picture when its freezing point was measured. :( Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That picture had been used in the radon article at some point, but was then rejected as failing NFCC because it doesn't actually have the subject visible (probably policy point #8 is the key). DMacks (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes you right the filename was Radon,_"Matter",_Ralph_E._Lapp_and_the_editors_of_LIFE,_LIFE_Science_Library,_1965.jpg (jeez!) HAt 07:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So the images of the other noble gases do fairly show those gasses, even though they are all described as colourless? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Plasma. HAt 12:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

And free beats non-free if the appropriateness is comparable in a given context. DMacks (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

How brief is brief?

Hello!

I just fixed up a quote in Zzyzx (film) per MOS:QUOTE, but I also noticed that the quotes in the reception section are somewhat long, and I'm not sure if directly quoting this long of a text is necessary.

Would this be considered a Copyvio? The non-free content page says that quotes should be brief, and I'm not sure it counts as such. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

About 220 words. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Upload a picture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want to upload this image of Soviet chemist Tserevitinov, who died before 1947 and is clearly younger in the photo. I do not know anything about the author, but that is also the case with say Sergey Vavilov, shot around the same time and the author is unknown. What condition of the Russian public domain is it satisfying? Also can I use it to upload the image I proposed? Thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

As I read Template:PD-Russia, if you argue #2, Commons might accept it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Indeed, but I see many of the photos, including say Lenin is that the authors most probably did not publish this anonymously or under a pseudonym, but it is us who don't know who they are and when they died. Does it still qualify? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the people on Commons have a better answer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Added this Flickr intel implosion aftermath

Wikipedia owners, I put the image from flickr i dont know who made it but the person who posted this upload this from Flickr any tips to remove this removal date? For legal purposeSaolqui2 (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Saolqui2 I'm not sure what you're asking. There is a WP-article on the building at Intel Shell. Are you trying to add a pic from [6] to the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I uploaded one of those pics (they were CC BY-SA 2.0) and put it in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, btw see the intel Shell page Saolqui2 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

PD-font?

The {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} licenses being used for File:LibertinusSansEg.png, File:LibertinusSerifEg.png, File:Libertinus Fonts.png and File:LibertinusSerifEg.png seem incorrect, but it might be OK to relicense these files as {{PD-simple}} or as c:Template:PD-font per c:COM:FONT. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me, as these are mere raster images. The only question I see would be the textual copyright on the example sentence in all those languages, but I suspect that these are long established as a typographical example text. Felix QW (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this. I am happy to accept your actions. Wujastyk (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)