![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Any opinions on whether this is below c:COM:TOO#Canada? It looks simple enough, but the triangle imagery does seem to be intended to represent a mountain range which might just be enough to push above the TOO for both Canada and the US. Anyway, the license was converted to {{ PD-logo}} by this edit, but the non-free rationales weren't changed to {{ Information}}. This is causing a conflict and the file is still be tagged for WP:NFCC#9 violations. Although I could ping the editor who made the change, they've been indefinitely blocked per WP:SOCK and any response would likely be block evasion. If this is PD, then the cleanup is fairly easy. However, it might be necessary to check to see if similiar edits were made by the same editor which also need cleaning up. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I've run into a couple of files that have been sourced to pexels.com which is a free image site. The licensing is quite free, allowing for reuse, modification, and commercial usage with no attribution required. However, the license does have restrictions of which "Don't sell unaltered copies of a photo, e.g. don't sell it as a stock photo, poster, print or on a physical product without adding any value." seems to be the most problematic as it is a restriction on some commercial usage. The first file was sent to FFD and closed as delete with only one comment in the discussion. I have nominated another. Some other perspectives on this license would be appreciated. -- Whpq ( talk) 00:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
File:A sun of our own newspaper headline.jpg The ZETA announcement in January 1958 was front page news around the world. I'd like to show that by using a newspaper headline like this one. Is there any reason this couldn't be used under FA in a FA? Maury Markowitz ( talk)
Perfect, thanks! Maury Markowitz ( talk) 19:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
may be PD in the US, it is not PD in the UK, and as such, just needs to be treated as non-freeWhat? We don't do that ever. We have probably dozens of thousands of local files that are free in the US and non-free in their source country. That is specifically condoned as free in our image use policy.
So, what's the story then? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 00:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I do not know if this has been asked before but I am curious to whether the logo of Shrewsbury Sixth Form College ( File:ShrewsburySixthFormCollegeLogo.jpg) in the United Kingdom meets the threhold of originality in the United States so I can tag it as being public domain in the US only if it does not. Tk420 ( talk) 20:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Multiple non-free logos are being used in an image gallery which is a problem per WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and WP:NFG. The question is whether they need to be licensed as non-free content, but rather as {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} instead. The files are File:Tv3ireland 1998.jpg, File:Tv3IREALND2006.jpg and File:TV3 Ireland 2017.png. These all appear to have been originally intended for use in TV3 (Ireland), and were just moved (without any updating/reassessing of their respective non-free use rationales) to "Virgin Media One" as part of redirect or mreger. I'm pretty sure the 2017 logo is below c:COM:TOO#United States, but not sure about the other two. The remaining file used in the gallery is File:TV3 Ireland.svg from Commons; that too is probably below c:COM:TOO#United States though I'm not so sure about c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom. If the Commons file is OK as {{ PD-logo}} than the 2017 logo should also be "PD-logo". Would appreciate some other input on this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This file is licensed as non-free, but it seems to be essentially the same as the public domain File:Mcgill CoA.jpg. I don't think the difference in coloring and the lack of the "McGill" name and ribbon are sufficient to establish the non-free version as a derivative work eligible for it's own copyright; however, even if it is, I don't think the non-free would satisfy WP:FREER. The licensing of File:McGill Wordmark.svg may also be affected by this because it's basically the same coat-of-arms with the university's name. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
This file is not really a good quality image and it's hard to make out (even looking at the source), but it appears to be a book cover that's nothing but text. It looks like there something handwritten the cover as well, but I cannot make it out. Does this really need to be licensed as {{ Non-free book cover}}? If it does, then it doesn't seem to meet WP:NFC#cite_note-3. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I've created an image of 2 musical chords using notation software that I have access to. However, the chords are taken from a published book, where they appear as examples of what the pianist Art Tatum could play. (The images of the chords in the book are very fuzzy, so I reproduced them to make them clearer.) I'd like to upload the image I created, to use in the Tatum article. Using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, I have to choose a) free work; b) copyrighted, non-free, but fair use; or c) I don't know who made it or who owns it. Which is it? Or should it not be uploaded? EddieHugh ( talk) 13:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Are there any restrictions for usage of images licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 in Wikipedia? Can they be used for collages?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This is simple book cover of black text on a plain background, so I don't think it needs to be licensed as non-free content (at least not per c:COM:TOO#United States and possibly not per c:COM:TOO#Norway. The book it's for was first published in 1917 according to Growth of the Soil, so it might also even be old enough to no longer be protected by copyright (assuming this is the cover used on the first edition). Can this be converted to WP:PD and if which license should be used? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I figure the kind of folks who weigh in here are the types of folks who can weigh in there. I've been doing a lot of the clearing there for a while, but I feel like I work on something else for a little while and turn around and there's two dozen requests pending. So anyone who wants to watchlist and answer a request here or there would be much appreciated. GMG talk 00:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Any opinions on whether any or all of the files used in this image gallery need to be licensed as non-free? The Fleur-de-lis which is used in most scout logos is public domain; so I'm wondering if the four files using it might also be considered as such. The one not using it ( File:Svenska Missionskyrkans Ungdom Scout.svg) appears to be simple enough to be PD at least in the United States. Anyway, if these need to be treated as non-free, they need to go per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8 since none of the individual organizations/chapters they represent appear to be notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
These files are licensed as free works (taken by me), but they have both been marked as derivative works. Why exactly is that? Many similar pictures appear across Wikipedia related to these two subjects without any issues. What needs to be done to keep these images? ~ Jedi94 ( Want to tell me something?) 03:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
How will I get a copy rights for the image I created and want to use in my article? Please let me know. Thanks in advance! ~vijay
Is anyone able to figure out what's going on here? It's possible {{ Non-free fair use}} was added by mistake; however, if this needs to be non-free, it clearly would fail WP:FREER and needs to be deleted per WP:F7. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:NFCC#File names of new versions of non-free files. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure this needs to be licensed as non-free content since Naval Medical Center San Diego appears to be a US Navy facility. Can this logo be converted to {{ PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be {{ PD-logo}} per both c:COM:TOO#United States and c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom, but it's not being used in any articles. It is being used in Draft:First Crown, but that's technically not allowed per WP:NFCC#9. So, converting it to PD eliminates any possibility that file will be deleted per WP:F5; on the other hand, converting it to PD might also mean that Wikipedia is left hosting a file which is not being used in any articles if the draft ends up being declined. Of course, the file could be moved to Commons in the latter case, where it can be hosted. Would it be better to wait to see whether the draft is approved before converting, or should it be done now? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I'd like to use this photograph of Phil Elverum in the article for his recent album A Crow Looked at Me. It's not my picture, just a photo from his own website. The source webpage of the picture (scroll right down) says "PROMOTIONAL PORTRAITS: (for anyone to use for whatever)" - can this image be used on Wikipedia? Thanks. — sparklism hey! 11:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The file is non-free and will be for quite some time (Orson Welles died in 1985, so PMA+70=2055, and I am not even sure that film copyright rests entirely with the director). It would probably be OK to use in Macbeth_(1948_film), but I am not sure it satisfies the "minimal use" requirement to use in the Macduff page. A search for "Macduff Macbeth" in Commons turns up several possible free replacements, such as File:John_Langford_Pritchard_as_Macduff_in_'Macbeth'.jpg. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Russell Crowe's jockstrap is a prop from Cinderella Man that subsequently gained quite a bit of notoriety. I'm wondering: Can a free image for a movie prop like that possibly exist? Or does the copyright encompass the prop as well, meaning that all images have to be used under FUR? The prop was displayed in a store in Alaska for a few months, so it's safe to assume people made photos of it. Regards So Why 19:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Fellow Wikipedians, I have had a good go at cleaning up the Electorate of Saxony entry which is currently tagged with Plagiarism. The source text is by Hermann Sacher (1913) edition, which I have consulted and have now accordingly referenced in the wiki article. I believe that although the Wiki article is largely drawn from this public domain source, it is not a verbatim copy, rather a condensation. The language in the source article is by now archaic and I have attempted to modernise the wiki article throughout and also edited the occasional clunky and in places, German sentence structure. I have added a bibliography from the German language wiki article on the subject. (I have an "intermediate" knowledge of German). Could you please take a look and see if it is now ready for the plagiarism tag to be removed? Many thanks, -- Po Mieczu ( talk) 13:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Anyone know the reason for this file to be labelled {{ Non-free logo}} and not {{ PD-PhilippinesGov}}? Skjoldbro ( talk) 10:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 23#File:Dril.jpg. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
02:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sure about the licensing of this file. The uploader claims it as "GFDL-self", but there's no EXIF data or source, etc. provided to verify that. The file can be seen online used here after being uploaded to Wikipedia, but that image links to here which is licensed as "All right reserved". Simply just going by the dates, the Flickr upload is probably a case of Flickr washing. The editor who uploaded the file no longer seems to be active, so I'm wondering if tagging this with {{ npd}} or {{ nsd}} would serve any real purpose. The file looks more like a scan of something than an actual photo, but that's just a guess. Can this be kept as is or should it go? Currently, it's tagged with {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, but I'm not sure it would surve a c:COM:DR per c:COM:PCP if it is eventually moved. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I know we can't use non-free images from, say, AP. But can we use one, for example, from the Guardian with the caption " Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian"? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 16:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I made changes to the File of Zenkit after I got a hint of missing copyrights. I added some information but I'm not sure if it's the right information.
I work at Zenkit (I added a note on my talk page) and have the permission to upload this Screenshot to Wikipedia. Please help me to set up the license and copyright and declare it as approved afterwards. -- Jessica Lu. ( talk) 13:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Any opinions on whether this is below c:COM:TOO#Canada? It looks simple enough, but the triangle imagery does seem to be intended to represent a mountain range which might just be enough to push above the TOO for both Canada and the US. Anyway, the license was converted to {{ PD-logo}} by this edit, but the non-free rationales weren't changed to {{ Information}}. This is causing a conflict and the file is still be tagged for WP:NFCC#9 violations. Although I could ping the editor who made the change, they've been indefinitely blocked per WP:SOCK and any response would likely be block evasion. If this is PD, then the cleanup is fairly easy. However, it might be necessary to check to see if similiar edits were made by the same editor which also need cleaning up. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I've run into a couple of files that have been sourced to pexels.com which is a free image site. The licensing is quite free, allowing for reuse, modification, and commercial usage with no attribution required. However, the license does have restrictions of which "Don't sell unaltered copies of a photo, e.g. don't sell it as a stock photo, poster, print or on a physical product without adding any value." seems to be the most problematic as it is a restriction on some commercial usage. The first file was sent to FFD and closed as delete with only one comment in the discussion. I have nominated another. Some other perspectives on this license would be appreciated. -- Whpq ( talk) 00:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
File:A sun of our own newspaper headline.jpg The ZETA announcement in January 1958 was front page news around the world. I'd like to show that by using a newspaper headline like this one. Is there any reason this couldn't be used under FA in a FA? Maury Markowitz ( talk)
Perfect, thanks! Maury Markowitz ( talk) 19:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
may be PD in the US, it is not PD in the UK, and as such, just needs to be treated as non-freeWhat? We don't do that ever. We have probably dozens of thousands of local files that are free in the US and non-free in their source country. That is specifically condoned as free in our image use policy.
So, what's the story then? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 00:35, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I do not know if this has been asked before but I am curious to whether the logo of Shrewsbury Sixth Form College ( File:ShrewsburySixthFormCollegeLogo.jpg) in the United Kingdom meets the threhold of originality in the United States so I can tag it as being public domain in the US only if it does not. Tk420 ( talk) 20:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Multiple non-free logos are being used in an image gallery which is a problem per WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and WP:NFG. The question is whether they need to be licensed as non-free content, but rather as {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} instead. The files are File:Tv3ireland 1998.jpg, File:Tv3IREALND2006.jpg and File:TV3 Ireland 2017.png. These all appear to have been originally intended for use in TV3 (Ireland), and were just moved (without any updating/reassessing of their respective non-free use rationales) to "Virgin Media One" as part of redirect or mreger. I'm pretty sure the 2017 logo is below c:COM:TOO#United States, but not sure about the other two. The remaining file used in the gallery is File:TV3 Ireland.svg from Commons; that too is probably below c:COM:TOO#United States though I'm not so sure about c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom. If the Commons file is OK as {{ PD-logo}} than the 2017 logo should also be "PD-logo". Would appreciate some other input on this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This file is licensed as non-free, but it seems to be essentially the same as the public domain File:Mcgill CoA.jpg. I don't think the difference in coloring and the lack of the "McGill" name and ribbon are sufficient to establish the non-free version as a derivative work eligible for it's own copyright; however, even if it is, I don't think the non-free would satisfy WP:FREER. The licensing of File:McGill Wordmark.svg may also be affected by this because it's basically the same coat-of-arms with the university's name. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
This file is not really a good quality image and it's hard to make out (even looking at the source), but it appears to be a book cover that's nothing but text. It looks like there something handwritten the cover as well, but I cannot make it out. Does this really need to be licensed as {{ Non-free book cover}}? If it does, then it doesn't seem to meet WP:NFC#cite_note-3. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I've created an image of 2 musical chords using notation software that I have access to. However, the chords are taken from a published book, where they appear as examples of what the pianist Art Tatum could play. (The images of the chords in the book are very fuzzy, so I reproduced them to make them clearer.) I'd like to upload the image I created, to use in the Tatum article. Using Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, I have to choose a) free work; b) copyrighted, non-free, but fair use; or c) I don't know who made it or who owns it. Which is it? Or should it not be uploaded? EddieHugh ( talk) 13:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Are there any restrictions for usage of images licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 in Wikipedia? Can they be used for collages?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 19:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This is simple book cover of black text on a plain background, so I don't think it needs to be licensed as non-free content (at least not per c:COM:TOO#United States and possibly not per c:COM:TOO#Norway. The book it's for was first published in 1917 according to Growth of the Soil, so it might also even be old enough to no longer be protected by copyright (assuming this is the cover used on the first edition). Can this be converted to WP:PD and if which license should be used? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I figure the kind of folks who weigh in here are the types of folks who can weigh in there. I've been doing a lot of the clearing there for a while, but I feel like I work on something else for a little while and turn around and there's two dozen requests pending. So anyone who wants to watchlist and answer a request here or there would be much appreciated. GMG talk 00:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Any opinions on whether any or all of the files used in this image gallery need to be licensed as non-free? The Fleur-de-lis which is used in most scout logos is public domain; so I'm wondering if the four files using it might also be considered as such. The one not using it ( File:Svenska Missionskyrkans Ungdom Scout.svg) appears to be simple enough to be PD at least in the United States. Anyway, if these need to be treated as non-free, they need to go per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8 since none of the individual organizations/chapters they represent appear to be notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
These files are licensed as free works (taken by me), but they have both been marked as derivative works. Why exactly is that? Many similar pictures appear across Wikipedia related to these two subjects without any issues. What needs to be done to keep these images? ~ Jedi94 ( Want to tell me something?) 03:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
How will I get a copy rights for the image I created and want to use in my article? Please let me know. Thanks in advance! ~vijay
Is anyone able to figure out what's going on here? It's possible {{ Non-free fair use}} was added by mistake; however, if this needs to be non-free, it clearly would fail WP:FREER and needs to be deleted per WP:F7. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:NFCC#File names of new versions of non-free files. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure this needs to be licensed as non-free content since Naval Medical Center San Diego appears to be a US Navy facility. Can this logo be converted to {{ PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
This seems to be {{ PD-logo}} per both c:COM:TOO#United States and c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom, but it's not being used in any articles. It is being used in Draft:First Crown, but that's technically not allowed per WP:NFCC#9. So, converting it to PD eliminates any possibility that file will be deleted per WP:F5; on the other hand, converting it to PD might also mean that Wikipedia is left hosting a file which is not being used in any articles if the draft ends up being declined. Of course, the file could be moved to Commons in the latter case, where it can be hosted. Would it be better to wait to see whether the draft is approved before converting, or should it be done now? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. I'd like to use this photograph of Phil Elverum in the article for his recent album A Crow Looked at Me. It's not my picture, just a photo from his own website. The source webpage of the picture (scroll right down) says "PROMOTIONAL PORTRAITS: (for anyone to use for whatever)" - can this image be used on Wikipedia? Thanks. — sparklism hey! 11:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The file is non-free and will be for quite some time (Orson Welles died in 1985, so PMA+70=2055, and I am not even sure that film copyright rests entirely with the director). It would probably be OK to use in Macbeth_(1948_film), but I am not sure it satisfies the "minimal use" requirement to use in the Macduff page. A search for "Macduff Macbeth" in Commons turns up several possible free replacements, such as File:John_Langford_Pritchard_as_Macduff_in_'Macbeth'.jpg. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Russell Crowe's jockstrap is a prop from Cinderella Man that subsequently gained quite a bit of notoriety. I'm wondering: Can a free image for a movie prop like that possibly exist? Or does the copyright encompass the prop as well, meaning that all images have to be used under FUR? The prop was displayed in a store in Alaska for a few months, so it's safe to assume people made photos of it. Regards So Why 19:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Fellow Wikipedians, I have had a good go at cleaning up the Electorate of Saxony entry which is currently tagged with Plagiarism. The source text is by Hermann Sacher (1913) edition, which I have consulted and have now accordingly referenced in the wiki article. I believe that although the Wiki article is largely drawn from this public domain source, it is not a verbatim copy, rather a condensation. The language in the source article is by now archaic and I have attempted to modernise the wiki article throughout and also edited the occasional clunky and in places, German sentence structure. I have added a bibliography from the German language wiki article on the subject. (I have an "intermediate" knowledge of German). Could you please take a look and see if it is now ready for the plagiarism tag to be removed? Many thanks, -- Po Mieczu ( talk) 13:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Anyone know the reason for this file to be labelled {{ Non-free logo}} and not {{ PD-PhilippinesGov}}? Skjoldbro ( talk) 10:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 23#File:Dril.jpg. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
02:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sure about the licensing of this file. The uploader claims it as "GFDL-self", but there's no EXIF data or source, etc. provided to verify that. The file can be seen online used here after being uploaded to Wikipedia, but that image links to here which is licensed as "All right reserved". Simply just going by the dates, the Flickr upload is probably a case of Flickr washing. The editor who uploaded the file no longer seems to be active, so I'm wondering if tagging this with {{ npd}} or {{ nsd}} would serve any real purpose. The file looks more like a scan of something than an actual photo, but that's just a guess. Can this be kept as is or should it go? Currently, it's tagged with {{ Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, but I'm not sure it would surve a c:COM:DR per c:COM:PCP if it is eventually moved. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I know we can't use non-free images from, say, AP. But can we use one, for example, from the Guardian with the caption " Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian"? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 16:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
I made changes to the File of Zenkit after I got a hint of missing copyrights. I added some information but I'm not sure if it's the right information.
I work at Zenkit (I added a note on my talk page) and have the permission to upload this Screenshot to Wikipedia. Please help me to set up the license and copyright and declare it as approved afterwards. -- Jessica Lu. ( talk) 13:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)