This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hello, I'm trying to add an image to the page Kraken Regiment, the problem is that "Kraken logo.png" links to two different images: one is this one ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kraken_logo.png?uselang=en) and the non-free one is this one ( File:Kraken logo.png) from Kraken (roller coaster). How I can make the first one show up and not the other? LordLoko ( talk) 17:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with File:Axiom Verge 2 parallel worlds.png, a composite image of two screenshots from a video game. The image itself is at a high resolution, but the two screenshots that make it up are only at around 240-360p. (I can't remember exactly, and regrettably I deleted them from my device after uploading.)
These images are necessary to illustrate one of the game's fundamental mechanics, and I believe fair use criteria are met because of the low individual resolutions described above. Unfortunately, bots can only see the image's master resolution, so they keep reducing it to a point where the screenshots within are barely legible. Can we resolve this in a way that keeps the image at a balanced resolution? I've considered reducing the master resolution to something like 512p, but bots wouldn't understand that anyway. Glades12 ( talk) 14:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I uploaded a Belgian company logo. (Company was closed in 2017)
As it's mainly only letters, I was thinking it's ok... Or not?! Thanks, YAOUMFA ( talk) 23:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Is this image in the public domain? I'm specifically thinking about the before 1989 rule. 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 16:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I was just wondering what your reasons might haven been to remove the church logos and heraldry? I don't really understand why, so if you could explain what your reasons were, then that would be very helpfull. King of Arrogance2001 ( talk) 16:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Any opinions on whether it would be OK to convert the licensing of File:1007wrdu.png from {{ non-free logo}} to {{ PD-logo}}. It's a former logo of the US radio station WRDU and the way it's currently being used fails WP:NFG and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. However, it's bascially nothing more than the station's call letters and slogan plus one other element which looks like a guitar pick. The guitar pick element looks simple enough, but it could also be just enough to push this logo above c:COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
File:RC Modeler 197311.jpg is currently being used in Mark Smith (R/C modeling pioneer) uncer a non-free license. The subject of the article may have died in 2011, but that's unsourced and so the article is still listed as BLP. I don't think the non-free use of this file could be justified if the subject is still living either per WP:FREER or item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI. It's possible,though, that this might be {{ PD-US-no notice}}. Anyone have any ideas on how to try and check on that? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Contents copyright 1973 by R/C Modeler Corporation. All rights reserved. Reproductions in whole or part, without written permission of the publisher, is prohibited.. I was unable to reliably source that the subject is deceased, but it can be unreliably sourced. Whpq ( talk) 13:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, is there currently a database of authors and publishers who approve quotes on Wikipedia? If not, can it be created?
== AUTHOR PERMISSION to use content on wikipedia ==
adamhochschild AT earthlink dot net wrote:
If the excerpt is a fairly short one, not more than a paragraph or two, and is properly credited to my book, it’s fine with me if you quote it on Wikipedia.
All the best, Adam Hochschild
May1787 ( talk) 05:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Author or publisher | Email address | Email content | Permission date |
---|---|---|---|
Adam Hochschild | adamhochschild AT earthlink dot net | If the excerpt is a fairly short one, not more than a paragraph or two, and is properly credited to my book, it’s fine with me if you quote it on Wikipedia. All the best, Adam Hochschild | October 7 2022 |
Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example |
May1787 ( talk) 02:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This newspaper article has a black and white photo of Pezzola using a police shield to break a window at the US Capitol on January 6, 2022. The photo credit says "court paperwork". Since the court in question is a US Federal court, is it safe to conclude that this photo is in the public domain? Cullen328 ( talk) 23:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Princess Seble Desta holding flowers with Emperor Haile Selassie, Prince Sahle, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and First Lady Mamie Eisenhower.jpeg was unploaded under a {{ PD-because}} license with the reason given being "the copyright has expired", but there's nothing provided to verify this claim. The file's description states it's a "AP wire photo" which would seem to mean the file can't be one of the various {{ PD-USGov}} licenses. It could be {{ PD-US-not renewed}} given that it is supposed to have been taken in 1954, but not sure that can automatically be assumed and not quite sure how to check that. Regardless, an image like this probably should be licensed as "PD-because" since that's basically like saying "PD because I want it to be PD" in my opinion. The is a number (B41745STF) in the photo's caption that might be some sort of identification number, but not sure. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
If i were to use this image in any other article apart from " Tikka Khan", it'd be taken down because the Image is described as used solely to illustrate a Person since the copyright is held by the person who created the Image. That example is exactly what happened to me. But then I see this image used in this article (in the atrocities section) even though its non free use just like the Tikka Khan one. Why is this one being used in multiple articles so freely? PreserveOurHistory ( talk) 11:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
it'd be taken down because the Image is described as used solely to illustrate a Person since the copyright is held by the person who created the Image.because that doesn't sound correct at all; in fact, it sounds like a mixing together of two different things. While it's true that the person who takes a photo (not the subject of a photo) is generally considered the copyright holder of said photo, there's nothing in Wikipedia'a image use policy that states such a photo can only be used in a Wikipedia article about the photographer (if that's what you mean). If you want to upload a photo taken by someone else that is still considered to be protected by copyright, then Wikipedia is going to need some way to verify that the copyright holder has given their WP:CONSENT for the photo to be uploaded. Without the copyright holder's consent, Wikipedia can't accept the photo under a free license. Now, in certain cases, Wikipedia allows copyrighted content like photos, logos and other media to uploaded without the copyright holder's consent as long the way the content is being used is in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The problem you were having with File:Lt Gen Gul Hassan Khan.jpg was that it was originally uploaded as non-free content and you were trying to use it in Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army#Commanders-in-Chief, Pakistan Army (1947–1972) without adding a corresponding non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page as required by non-free content use criterion #10c. That is why the bot removed the file and same thing applies to all non-free content regardless of how it's used as Nthep pointed out above. Now, what the bot doesn't and can't assess is whether the non-free use would be policy-compliant if the file in question is provided with a non-free use rationale. In this case, the answer is it would not because non-free content is pretty much never allowed to illustrate individual entries in tables or lists ( embedded lists included) per WP:NFTABLES and WP:NFLISTS.A non-free photo a deceased individual like Gul Hassan Khan is typically allowed for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the individual as long as it meets WP:FREER, but is almost never allowed to be used in other types of article or other types of ways unless there's a really good policy-based reason for doing so. The first use in the article about the person is already considered an exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files which means each additional non-free use after that becomes increasing more of an exception and increasing harder to justify. There's nothing inconsistent with this because this has how relevant policy has been applied since the non-free content policy was established so many years ago. The bot removed the file because you failed to provide a non-free use rationale for the use on the file's page, but providing a rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the ten non-free content use criteria that need to be met and a non free use needs to satisfy all ten criteria for the use to be considered policy compliant.I saw that you changed the photo's licensing to {{ PD-Pakistan}} and the photo may indeed be within the public domain under Pakistani copyright law; however, the photo also needs to be within the public domain under US copyright law because that's where Wikipedia's servers are located. Even if the photo is PD in Pakistan, it will still need to be treated as non-free content if it's not PD in the United States. So, for now, I've re-added a non-free license to the file's page and removed it from "Commander-in-Chief" article so that its copyright can be further discussed either here or at WP:FFD. If it turns out that the photo is both PD in Pakistan and the US, then it should be moved to Commons and you can use it pretty much any way you want as long as you do so in accordance with Wikipedia's more general image use policy. If, on the other hand, the photo is still considered to be protect by copyright under US copyright law, it will need to be treated as non-free content for use on English Wikipedia. The first thing that is needed to help determine the photo's copyright status is more information about its en:provenance. The Flickr source provided for the photo does us no good because (1) the Flickr account holder almost certainly didn't take the photo themselves so they can't claim they own the copyright over it, and (2) the Flickr page provides no real information as to when the photo was first published and who it was taken by. If you can find such information, the please post it here. If neither you nor anyone else is able to find such information, then the best that can be done is for Wikipedia to continue to treat the photo as non-free content. Even as non-free content, though, the photo still has issues with non-free content use criterion #4 ( WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criteria) because (once again) the Flickr account holder is almost certainly not the original copyright holder even though they are claiming they are and more needs to be know about the provenance of photo for it to even be used as non-free content. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I would like to use some photographs from the Lawrence photograph collection of the National Library of Ireland. To me these appear to be out of copyright due to their age. This example [1] has the information: "French, Robert, 1841-1917 photographer". The subject matter of interest is such that the photograph dates, at the very latest, before World War 2 (Chuck Meide & Kathryn Sikes (2011) The Achill Yawl: vernacular boats in historical context on Achill Island, Ireland, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 40:2, 235-255, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2010.00297.x) and probably substantially before that.
However, the National Library of Ireland seem to claim copyright. Are they correct or could this be uploaded to commons? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 19:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
References
I created the Cretodromia article and would like to include a diagram used in the referenced study. The contents of the study are considered "freely accessible" by the American Natural History Museum's digital research library, but I am unsure if this means the diagram is okay to upload as an image. Here is a link to the study's page in the library: [2] https://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/1583 Yupwewin ( talk) 18:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I regularly come across articles with large amounts of close paraphrasing or mirroring of a single source, and sometimes lots of copy-paste sentences or paragraphs. While I've tagged some newly created pages at WP:NPP, I've never filed a WP:CPN notice for longer lasting or more complicated issues (I usually just sigh, ignore the mess and move on). According to Earwig's Copyvio Detector, the article David Crenshaw Barrow Jr. has a 74.8% similarity with the corresponding article in the New Georgia Encyclopedia, with many sentences repeated verbatim. Is there an approximate percentage threshold for how much similarity is acceptable before being actionable? Should this be blanked and referred to Wikipedia:Copyright problems? I don't care enough about the subject to rewrite it at this time. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm added the logo of the People’s Anti-Fascist Front on Wikipedia and I added it as the logo of the group. Someone said it was not allowed to be used and it was removed. Then how do I add it when it is not allowed? It is from - https://trackingterrorism.org/group/peoples-anti-fascist-front-paff-jammu-and-kashmir/ Muhafiz-e-Pakistan ( talk) 14:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
|source=
parameter. After you do this, re-add the file to the article listed in |article=
parameter of the rationale. If you do this, the bot should stop removing the files. As for your question But how do most people use logos of militant groups without non-free use rationale?, the only thing I can say is such non-free use isn't compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and not permitted. It's also quite possible that there are differences in how the files are licensed and how they're being used as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. Not all logo files you see used on Wikipedia are licensed as non-free content and thus their uses aren't subject to non-free content use policy. If the logo has been released under an acceptable free license by its copyright holder or is considered to be within the public domain for some reason (for example, it's too simple to ever be eligible for copyright protection or it's now too old to be still eligible for copyright protection), then it's not subject to the same restrictions as non-free content use. Freely licensed content and public domain content still do, however, need information about their provenance provided on their file pages so that their copyright licensing can be assessed, but they are not required to have a non-free use rationale. As for the other files you've uploaded as your "own work", those files should really be moved to Wikipedia Commons since they aren't non-free content and there's no need for them to be local files (i.e. for use on English Wikipedia only); so, moving them to Commons will make them much easier for others to use. Before they can be moved, however, more information about the provenance of each file needs to be added to its page. Once again, the easiest way to do this is probably to use template like Template:Information; just add the template's syntax to each file's page and then fill in the parameters. It's important though to make sure that all the files you've uploaded are you "own work" and not things created by others that you might've found someowhere online. Only copyright holders can release their content as "own work" under a free license and content found online is not automatically free from copyright protection as explained here. For reference, "own work" is defined in a special way when it comes to copyright as explained here and you can only claim original content that you yourself create as your "own work". -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! File:Washington State Cougars logo.svg was recently removed from the Washington State University page for not having a fair use rationale, even though it is both the logo for the sports teams (which its current rationale is for) and the college itself. How would I go about changing that so that it can actually be used on the university’s page?
MacDoesWiki ( talk) 01:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
There's an image released by the Swedish police that is used on various Swedish news articles but they all mark the source as the 'police'. What copyright status would this fall under? Parzival2101 ( talk) 20:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Božidar Magovac.jpg results under copyright, but who owns it? Is this file actually copyrighted? He's been vice-president of Yugoslavia in the 40's, so I added this picture to National Committee for the Liberation of Yugoslavia#Presidency, but it has been removed shortly after. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 01:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The image File:Danilov Violist.jpg was removed from the article Danilov, the Violist despite simply being an image of the book cover. I believe it would fall under non-free use rationale. Is there really no way I can use the image? Jaguarnik ( talk) 03:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
|article=
parameter in the two rationales on the file's page were linking to the author's article. This is what the bot was looking at and why it removed the file. The same bot also looks for
WP:NFCC#9 violations. It isn't, however, capable of assessing whether a rationale is otherwise OK. Sometimes JJMC89 (the bots operator) or others will follow up and "fix" the rationale if all that is needed is a parameter tweak, but sometimes things aren't as clear and further discussion may be needed. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 21:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Hello, can someone deal with the logo update request as part of this edit request, or at least give me some pointers on doing so? (I'm blind and can't see images). The logo would go to the new Cadence Bank page. Would I be right in presuming the logo they want is this one and would it be eligible to be uploaded to Commons as an uncopyrightable logo, like the previous one? (I presume not based on the automated description of the image my screen reader gave me, but I thought I'd check first). Graham 87 11:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Is this picture okay to upload on Wikipedia? File:RezaCAFC.jpg Mehrabpr ( talk) 15:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
A bot removed the photo of Audrey Hepburn in her little black dress, but the same image is in
Black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn. What's the problem?
Clarityfiend (
talk) 11:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Never mind. I found the rationale. Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Flickr has implemented a function to look at the license history of a photo. In the "Additional info" section, there is now a link marked "License History" which displays all history of licenses including date of license change. -- Whpq ( talk) 23:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Does the We did it Joe video by Kamala Harris fall under the public domain? I’m asking as this picture by MTG was also posted on Twitter, and is alleged to be in the public domain under the “PD-USGov-Congress” template 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 17:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to use this article on a Wikipedia page: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PFHiwale4ieMseJh4kg-JLgy4_6_Jx9F/view?usp=sharing
It's a scan of an article from an internal IBM UK newsletter from 1970. I believe it's the only surviving evidence of the first computer racing game, which was shown on the BBC Tomorrow's World program in 1970.
I would like to use it in the following Wikipedia page under the History section: /info/en/?search=Racing_game
I have no way of tracking down the author or photographer and the BBC program it's referring to is no longer in existence.
Is it possible to use this as I believe there is no non-free equivalent available? Tuesday x ( talk) 14:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe it is the first computer racing game ever written because I can't find any evidence of an earlier onewould be original research because you are coming to your own conclusions based on your own searches. You do not have a reliable source that states that. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Actor_Valéry_Inkijinoff.jpg and this HD post by Brianjd (ping) for context.
Summary: File:Valéry_Inkijinoff.jpg, a local en-wp file, is a still image from a public domain film ( File:Потомок_Чингисхана._(1928).webm). It is therefore itself public domain. However, because it was tagged as non-free, its resolution was downgraded (by bot) in 2021 and the old version rev-deleted. A copy of the low-res file was uploaded to Commons ( commons:File:Actor Valéry Inkijinoff.jpg) - with incorrect licensing but the discussion is going to resolve that.
Could someone please:
{{
PD-Russia}}
, judging by the license on
File:Потомок_Чингисхана._(1928).webm)(#1 probably requires admin powers.) Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I need help with the copyrights of this image on the Mullett Arena page. Dannyphx ( talk) 02:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I would like help uploading the following image:
First go to: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Magyar_Warriors/TP4sDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
Then click to preview the book and go to page 390, I would like to upload the image at the bottom of page 390, the image showing the 'Panther' tank.
Can I upload this image to the wiki article about the Panther tank? At the bottom right of page 390, it says "Copyrighted material", I do intend to reference this book and the author and give credit, but I read that you can't upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia and that most images online are copyrighted, and you can only upload your own work to Wikipedia, if this is true, how comes there are still plenty of images on Wikipedia, including about this tank? Surely most images on Wikipedia aren't peoples' own work, especially considering historical topics. Can someone please explain this in a simple way and what I should do? Thanks. ~~~~Victory799 Victory799 ( talk) 13:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Hello, I'm trying to add an image to the page Kraken Regiment, the problem is that "Kraken logo.png" links to two different images: one is this one ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kraken_logo.png?uselang=en) and the non-free one is this one ( File:Kraken logo.png) from Kraken (roller coaster). How I can make the first one show up and not the other? LordLoko ( talk) 17:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with File:Axiom Verge 2 parallel worlds.png, a composite image of two screenshots from a video game. The image itself is at a high resolution, but the two screenshots that make it up are only at around 240-360p. (I can't remember exactly, and regrettably I deleted them from my device after uploading.)
These images are necessary to illustrate one of the game's fundamental mechanics, and I believe fair use criteria are met because of the low individual resolutions described above. Unfortunately, bots can only see the image's master resolution, so they keep reducing it to a point where the screenshots within are barely legible. Can we resolve this in a way that keeps the image at a balanced resolution? I've considered reducing the master resolution to something like 512p, but bots wouldn't understand that anyway. Glades12 ( talk) 14:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
I uploaded a Belgian company logo. (Company was closed in 2017)
As it's mainly only letters, I was thinking it's ok... Or not?! Thanks, YAOUMFA ( talk) 23:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Is this image in the public domain? I'm specifically thinking about the before 1989 rule. 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 16:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I was just wondering what your reasons might haven been to remove the church logos and heraldry? I don't really understand why, so if you could explain what your reasons were, then that would be very helpfull. King of Arrogance2001 ( talk) 16:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Any opinions on whether it would be OK to convert the licensing of File:1007wrdu.png from {{ non-free logo}} to {{ PD-logo}}. It's a former logo of the US radio station WRDU and the way it's currently being used fails WP:NFG and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. However, it's bascially nothing more than the station's call letters and slogan plus one other element which looks like a guitar pick. The guitar pick element looks simple enough, but it could also be just enough to push this logo above c:COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
File:RC Modeler 197311.jpg is currently being used in Mark Smith (R/C modeling pioneer) uncer a non-free license. The subject of the article may have died in 2011, but that's unsourced and so the article is still listed as BLP. I don't think the non-free use of this file could be justified if the subject is still living either per WP:FREER or item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI. It's possible,though, that this might be {{ PD-US-no notice}}. Anyone have any ideas on how to try and check on that? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Contents copyright 1973 by R/C Modeler Corporation. All rights reserved. Reproductions in whole or part, without written permission of the publisher, is prohibited.. I was unable to reliably source that the subject is deceased, but it can be unreliably sourced. Whpq ( talk) 13:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, is there currently a database of authors and publishers who approve quotes on Wikipedia? If not, can it be created?
== AUTHOR PERMISSION to use content on wikipedia ==
adamhochschild AT earthlink dot net wrote:
If the excerpt is a fairly short one, not more than a paragraph or two, and is properly credited to my book, it’s fine with me if you quote it on Wikipedia.
All the best, Adam Hochschild
May1787 ( talk) 05:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Author or publisher | Email address | Email content | Permission date |
---|---|---|---|
Adam Hochschild | adamhochschild AT earthlink dot net | If the excerpt is a fairly short one, not more than a paragraph or two, and is properly credited to my book, it’s fine with me if you quote it on Wikipedia. All the best, Adam Hochschild | October 7 2022 |
Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example |
Example | Example | Example | Example |
May1787 ( talk) 02:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This newspaper article has a black and white photo of Pezzola using a police shield to break a window at the US Capitol on January 6, 2022. The photo credit says "court paperwork". Since the court in question is a US Federal court, is it safe to conclude that this photo is in the public domain? Cullen328 ( talk) 23:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Princess Seble Desta holding flowers with Emperor Haile Selassie, Prince Sahle, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and First Lady Mamie Eisenhower.jpeg was unploaded under a {{ PD-because}} license with the reason given being "the copyright has expired", but there's nothing provided to verify this claim. The file's description states it's a "AP wire photo" which would seem to mean the file can't be one of the various {{ PD-USGov}} licenses. It could be {{ PD-US-not renewed}} given that it is supposed to have been taken in 1954, but not sure that can automatically be assumed and not quite sure how to check that. Regardless, an image like this probably should be licensed as "PD-because" since that's basically like saying "PD because I want it to be PD" in my opinion. The is a number (B41745STF) in the photo's caption that might be some sort of identification number, but not sure. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
If i were to use this image in any other article apart from " Tikka Khan", it'd be taken down because the Image is described as used solely to illustrate a Person since the copyright is held by the person who created the Image. That example is exactly what happened to me. But then I see this image used in this article (in the atrocities section) even though its non free use just like the Tikka Khan one. Why is this one being used in multiple articles so freely? PreserveOurHistory ( talk) 11:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
it'd be taken down because the Image is described as used solely to illustrate a Person since the copyright is held by the person who created the Image.because that doesn't sound correct at all; in fact, it sounds like a mixing together of two different things. While it's true that the person who takes a photo (not the subject of a photo) is generally considered the copyright holder of said photo, there's nothing in Wikipedia'a image use policy that states such a photo can only be used in a Wikipedia article about the photographer (if that's what you mean). If you want to upload a photo taken by someone else that is still considered to be protected by copyright, then Wikipedia is going to need some way to verify that the copyright holder has given their WP:CONSENT for the photo to be uploaded. Without the copyright holder's consent, Wikipedia can't accept the photo under a free license. Now, in certain cases, Wikipedia allows copyrighted content like photos, logos and other media to uploaded without the copyright holder's consent as long the way the content is being used is in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The problem you were having with File:Lt Gen Gul Hassan Khan.jpg was that it was originally uploaded as non-free content and you were trying to use it in Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army#Commanders-in-Chief, Pakistan Army (1947–1972) without adding a corresponding non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page as required by non-free content use criterion #10c. That is why the bot removed the file and same thing applies to all non-free content regardless of how it's used as Nthep pointed out above. Now, what the bot doesn't and can't assess is whether the non-free use would be policy-compliant if the file in question is provided with a non-free use rationale. In this case, the answer is it would not because non-free content is pretty much never allowed to illustrate individual entries in tables or lists ( embedded lists included) per WP:NFTABLES and WP:NFLISTS.A non-free photo a deceased individual like Gul Hassan Khan is typically allowed for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the individual as long as it meets WP:FREER, but is almost never allowed to be used in other types of article or other types of ways unless there's a really good policy-based reason for doing so. The first use in the article about the person is already considered an exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files which means each additional non-free use after that becomes increasing more of an exception and increasing harder to justify. There's nothing inconsistent with this because this has how relevant policy has been applied since the non-free content policy was established so many years ago. The bot removed the file because you failed to provide a non-free use rationale for the use on the file's page, but providing a rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the ten non-free content use criteria that need to be met and a non free use needs to satisfy all ten criteria for the use to be considered policy compliant.I saw that you changed the photo's licensing to {{ PD-Pakistan}} and the photo may indeed be within the public domain under Pakistani copyright law; however, the photo also needs to be within the public domain under US copyright law because that's where Wikipedia's servers are located. Even if the photo is PD in Pakistan, it will still need to be treated as non-free content if it's not PD in the United States. So, for now, I've re-added a non-free license to the file's page and removed it from "Commander-in-Chief" article so that its copyright can be further discussed either here or at WP:FFD. If it turns out that the photo is both PD in Pakistan and the US, then it should be moved to Commons and you can use it pretty much any way you want as long as you do so in accordance with Wikipedia's more general image use policy. If, on the other hand, the photo is still considered to be protect by copyright under US copyright law, it will need to be treated as non-free content for use on English Wikipedia. The first thing that is needed to help determine the photo's copyright status is more information about its en:provenance. The Flickr source provided for the photo does us no good because (1) the Flickr account holder almost certainly didn't take the photo themselves so they can't claim they own the copyright over it, and (2) the Flickr page provides no real information as to when the photo was first published and who it was taken by. If you can find such information, the please post it here. If neither you nor anyone else is able to find such information, then the best that can be done is for Wikipedia to continue to treat the photo as non-free content. Even as non-free content, though, the photo still has issues with non-free content use criterion #4 ( WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criteria) because (once again) the Flickr account holder is almost certainly not the original copyright holder even though they are claiming they are and more needs to be know about the provenance of photo for it to even be used as non-free content. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 13:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I would like to use some photographs from the Lawrence photograph collection of the National Library of Ireland. To me these appear to be out of copyright due to their age. This example [1] has the information: "French, Robert, 1841-1917 photographer". The subject matter of interest is such that the photograph dates, at the very latest, before World War 2 (Chuck Meide & Kathryn Sikes (2011) The Achill Yawl: vernacular boats in historical context on Achill Island, Ireland, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 40:2, 235-255, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2010.00297.x) and probably substantially before that.
However, the National Library of Ireland seem to claim copyright. Are they correct or could this be uploaded to commons? ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 19:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
References
I created the Cretodromia article and would like to include a diagram used in the referenced study. The contents of the study are considered "freely accessible" by the American Natural History Museum's digital research library, but I am unsure if this means the diagram is okay to upload as an image. Here is a link to the study's page in the library: [2] https://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/1583 Yupwewin ( talk) 18:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi all. I regularly come across articles with large amounts of close paraphrasing or mirroring of a single source, and sometimes lots of copy-paste sentences or paragraphs. While I've tagged some newly created pages at WP:NPP, I've never filed a WP:CPN notice for longer lasting or more complicated issues (I usually just sigh, ignore the mess and move on). According to Earwig's Copyvio Detector, the article David Crenshaw Barrow Jr. has a 74.8% similarity with the corresponding article in the New Georgia Encyclopedia, with many sentences repeated verbatim. Is there an approximate percentage threshold for how much similarity is acceptable before being actionable? Should this be blanked and referred to Wikipedia:Copyright problems? I don't care enough about the subject to rewrite it at this time. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm added the logo of the People’s Anti-Fascist Front on Wikipedia and I added it as the logo of the group. Someone said it was not allowed to be used and it was removed. Then how do I add it when it is not allowed? It is from - https://trackingterrorism.org/group/peoples-anti-fascist-front-paff-jammu-and-kashmir/ Muhafiz-e-Pakistan ( talk) 14:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
|source=
parameter. After you do this, re-add the file to the article listed in |article=
parameter of the rationale. If you do this, the bot should stop removing the files. As for your question But how do most people use logos of militant groups without non-free use rationale?, the only thing I can say is such non-free use isn't compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and not permitted. It's also quite possible that there are differences in how the files are licensed and how they're being used as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. Not all logo files you see used on Wikipedia are licensed as non-free content and thus their uses aren't subject to non-free content use policy. If the logo has been released under an acceptable free license by its copyright holder or is considered to be within the public domain for some reason (for example, it's too simple to ever be eligible for copyright protection or it's now too old to be still eligible for copyright protection), then it's not subject to the same restrictions as non-free content use. Freely licensed content and public domain content still do, however, need information about their provenance provided on their file pages so that their copyright licensing can be assessed, but they are not required to have a non-free use rationale. As for the other files you've uploaded as your "own work", those files should really be moved to Wikipedia Commons since they aren't non-free content and there's no need for them to be local files (i.e. for use on English Wikipedia only); so, moving them to Commons will make them much easier for others to use. Before they can be moved, however, more information about the provenance of each file needs to be added to its page. Once again, the easiest way to do this is probably to use template like Template:Information; just add the template's syntax to each file's page and then fill in the parameters. It's important though to make sure that all the files you've uploaded are you "own work" and not things created by others that you might've found someowhere online. Only copyright holders can release their content as "own work" under a free license and content found online is not automatically free from copyright protection as explained here. For reference, "own work" is defined in a special way when it comes to copyright as explained here and you can only claim original content that you yourself create as your "own work". -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! File:Washington State Cougars logo.svg was recently removed from the Washington State University page for not having a fair use rationale, even though it is both the logo for the sports teams (which its current rationale is for) and the college itself. How would I go about changing that so that it can actually be used on the university’s page?
MacDoesWiki ( talk) 01:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
There's an image released by the Swedish police that is used on various Swedish news articles but they all mark the source as the 'police'. What copyright status would this fall under? Parzival2101 ( talk) 20:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
File:Božidar Magovac.jpg results under copyright, but who owns it? Is this file actually copyrighted? He's been vice-president of Yugoslavia in the 40's, so I added this picture to National Committee for the Liberation of Yugoslavia#Presidency, but it has been removed shortly after. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 01:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
The image File:Danilov Violist.jpg was removed from the article Danilov, the Violist despite simply being an image of the book cover. I believe it would fall under non-free use rationale. Is there really no way I can use the image? Jaguarnik ( talk) 03:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
|article=
parameter in the two rationales on the file's page were linking to the author's article. This is what the bot was looking at and why it removed the file. The same bot also looks for
WP:NFCC#9 violations. It isn't, however, capable of assessing whether a rationale is otherwise OK. Sometimes JJMC89 (the bots operator) or others will follow up and "fix" the rationale if all that is needed is a parameter tweak, but sometimes things aren't as clear and further discussion may be needed. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 21:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Hello, can someone deal with the logo update request as part of this edit request, or at least give me some pointers on doing so? (I'm blind and can't see images). The logo would go to the new Cadence Bank page. Would I be right in presuming the logo they want is this one and would it be eligible to be uploaded to Commons as an uncopyrightable logo, like the previous one? (I presume not based on the automated description of the image my screen reader gave me, but I thought I'd check first). Graham 87 11:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Is this picture okay to upload on Wikipedia? File:RezaCAFC.jpg Mehrabpr ( talk) 15:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
A bot removed the photo of Audrey Hepburn in her little black dress, but the same image is in
Black Givenchy dress of Audrey Hepburn. What's the problem?
Clarityfiend (
talk) 11:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Never mind. I found the rationale. Clarityfiend ( talk) 11:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Flickr has implemented a function to look at the license history of a photo. In the "Additional info" section, there is now a link marked "License History" which displays all history of licenses including date of license change. -- Whpq ( talk) 23:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Does the We did it Joe video by Kamala Harris fall under the public domain? I’m asking as this picture by MTG was also posted on Twitter, and is alleged to be in the public domain under the “PD-USGov-Congress” template 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 17:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to use this article on a Wikipedia page: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PFHiwale4ieMseJh4kg-JLgy4_6_Jx9F/view?usp=sharing
It's a scan of an article from an internal IBM UK newsletter from 1970. I believe it's the only surviving evidence of the first computer racing game, which was shown on the BBC Tomorrow's World program in 1970.
I would like to use it in the following Wikipedia page under the History section: /info/en/?search=Racing_game
I have no way of tracking down the author or photographer and the BBC program it's referring to is no longer in existence.
Is it possible to use this as I believe there is no non-free equivalent available? Tuesday x ( talk) 14:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe it is the first computer racing game ever written because I can't find any evidence of an earlier onewould be original research because you are coming to your own conclusions based on your own searches. You do not have a reliable source that states that. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
See commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Actor_Valéry_Inkijinoff.jpg and this HD post by Brianjd (ping) for context.
Summary: File:Valéry_Inkijinoff.jpg, a local en-wp file, is a still image from a public domain film ( File:Потомок_Чингисхана._(1928).webm). It is therefore itself public domain. However, because it was tagged as non-free, its resolution was downgraded (by bot) in 2021 and the old version rev-deleted. A copy of the low-res file was uploaded to Commons ( commons:File:Actor Valéry Inkijinoff.jpg) - with incorrect licensing but the discussion is going to resolve that.
Could someone please:
{{
PD-Russia}}
, judging by the license on
File:Потомок_Чингисхана._(1928).webm)(#1 probably requires admin powers.) Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I need help with the copyrights of this image on the Mullett Arena page. Dannyphx ( talk) 02:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
I would like help uploading the following image:
First go to: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Magyar_Warriors/TP4sDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
Then click to preview the book and go to page 390, I would like to upload the image at the bottom of page 390, the image showing the 'Panther' tank.
Can I upload this image to the wiki article about the Panther tank? At the bottom right of page 390, it says "Copyrighted material", I do intend to reference this book and the author and give credit, but I read that you can't upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia and that most images online are copyrighted, and you can only upload your own work to Wikipedia, if this is true, how comes there are still plenty of images on Wikipedia, including about this tank? Surely most images on Wikipedia aren't peoples' own work, especially considering historical topics. Can someone please explain this in a simple way and what I should do? Thanks. ~~~~Victory799 Victory799 ( talk) 13:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)