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.
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.
| ||
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
image on ruwiki. This image was uploaded in 2015 as copyright fair use. Is it still copyright in 2024, the 100 year anniversary of publication? Desired destination is Commons or enwiki, for use in Plutonia (novel) as a free image not fair use. -- Green C 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Pi Lambda Sigma Pin.png was uploaded and licensed as non-free, but that only would seem to be necessary if the pin itself is eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:CB#Jewelry. If the pin isn't eligible for copyright protection (e.g. it's {{ PD-US-1989}} or {{ PD-US-no notice}}, then a non-free license just for the photo would fail WP:FREER. On the other hand, even if the pin is eligible for copyright protection, then it would still seem that a non-free photo wouldn't be allowed per FREER since a freely licensed one could be uploaded and used instead, with a non-free license still being provided for the pin. FWIW, the design of the pin seems fairly simply and might actually be below c:COM:TOO US which means the only thing that matters would be the licensing of the photo, right? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
Could you please provide detailed instructions on how to properly upload and tag the cover photo on Wikipedia what belongs to a Journal?
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Kind regards,
Kateryna
Research Assistant~~~~ Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics ( talk) 11:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Open question.
Mexican peso has 103 non-free files in it and is undoubtedly the page with most non-free files on Wikipedia, beating the second place by some 80 points. Articles are structured and worded to minimize the total number of items of non-free content that are included within the encyclopedia, where it is reasonable to do so.
can be read at
WP:FU#Number of items. So is this use of 103 non-free files really warranted?
Jonteemil (
talk)
16:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Rissani Jewish Cemetery.jpeg is a non-free photo of a cemetary currently being used in Rissani#History. The photo is being used in an image gallery (which is not really allowed) per WP:NFG, but there are a few sentences about the cemetary in the paragraph located above. I'm not sure whether there's enough though to meet WP:NFCC#8, but I'm also wondering whether this needs to be treated as non-free. c:COM:FOP Morocco seems to indicate that there's only a very limited type of freedom of panorama allowed under Moroccan copyright law, but it seems that this would be OK under US copyright law. Is there any way for this file to be treated as PD locally under US copyright law? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
In the article about artist/scupltor Miles Teves, there is a paragraph under "Reception" that praises a specific piece of Teves's art created for the cover the role-playing game Skyrealms of Jorune. I tried to add a non-free image of trhis artwork in order to illustrate this, using the rationale "This artwork is specifically mentioned in the critical reception quoted in the article." However it was quickly taken down by JJMC89 bot because "No valid non-free use rationale for this page." Can someone provide guidance on what to do to reinstall this illustration in this article. Guinness323 ( talk) 15:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
|article=
parameter (the part that states "Use in article (WP:NFCC#7))
in the non-free use rationale you provided for the file; yet, you added the file to
Miles Teves#Reception. That bot has been tasked with finding images being used in ways that do not comply with
WP:NFCC#10c and the main way it does this is by looking for a link to the article where the file is being used in the non-free use rationale provided for the file. The non-free use rationale is telling the bot that the file is going to be used in "Skyrealms of Jorune", but the bot is seeing used in "Miles Teves" instead; so, it does what it's been tasked to do and removes the file per
WP:NFCCE from the article or articles where it's being used without a corresponding non-free use rationale. The bot isn't reading the non-free rationale in the sense that you or I might read it. It's not trying to assess whether the file meets non-free content use criterion
WP:NFCC#8. It's only looking for a technical connection between the non-free use rationale provided for the file and the article where it's seeing the file being used. Changing the article parameter of the non-free use rationale from |article=Skyrealms of Jorune
to |article=Miles Teves
("Miles Teves#Reception" might even be better) should stop the bot removing the file. Finally, tweaking the file's non-free use rationale should resolve the reason why the bot removed the file, but it doesn't automatically mean the file's non-free use is beyond reproach. Someone could still challenge the file's non-free use
if they think it fails any of the other non-free content use criteria. Video game cover art is, first and foremost, generally considered to be acceptable when used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the video game itself. Trying to use such cover art in other articles or in other ways can be trickier and harder to justify per
WP:NFC#CS; so, the more critical commentary (supported by citations to reliable sources) you can add to that section of the Teves article about how the cover art is representative of Teves work, the better your chances of avoiding the file's non-free use being challenged. What 's there so far isn't bad per se, but it puts a lot of weight on entirely one source and one person's interpretation of the significance of the work. If you can show that others have been discussing the cover in such a way as well, it might show present a more balanced picture of critical acclaim the cover received. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
18:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I am asking about the illustration of Tlingit people catching salmon on this web page. Is it reasonable to conclude that this illustration is the work of an employee of the U.S. federal government and therefore in the public domain? Is the NPS notation at the end of the description of the illustration an indication of that? Thanks. Cullen328 ( talk) 23:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I loaded an image with a wrong name. Issue has been rectified except an administrator needs to speedy this file away. Thanks. —tim /// Carrite ( talk) 18:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I recently added a picture File:Chang'e 6 lander and ascender.jpg to the info box of wiki page 2024 in spaceflight, as I think this is a pretty significant event in spaceflight this year. However, it was removed by JJMC89 bot the next day, citing WP:NFCC violation(s). I tried to read the wiki Non-free content criteria, but was a bit overwhelmed. From what I can gather, there is no free equivalent for this picture as it's one of a kind, and is only available from CNSA--their rover took the picture. Besides, this picture is used on another wiki page Chang'e 6 so it must be valid?! Can someone knowledgeable in this area help me decipher this? Thanks in advance! Showmebeef ( talk) 07:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I'm working on Gwoyeu Romatzyh, and a source I'm working from already has just what I felt I needed to add: a very basic table listing a handful of words and how they appear when written using different systems. I know information itself is not copyrightable, and there's not a lot of "work" here other than picking representative examples, but I still figured I'd ask whether it's alright to use the same examples adapted to a table in the article? Cited, it goes without saying. Remsense 诉 01:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am working on creating an article relating to the Cuban revolution, and in finding images to use for the article I came across this photo on Ecured. I know that Ecured is very different from Wikipedia as it was created by the Cuban government and also has different rules, however I feel the fact that it was uploaded here and has remained there for 14 years without being taken down due to copyright violations may mean to me that it is not a copyright violation. However, the page itself does not present anything regarding it's copyright status, only a fountain bringing a a link to a news website. I searched the website for anything regarding the photo but I could not find anything. I don't feel 100% like I can use this so I am posting here to see if this image is okay to use Pavansur ( talk) 06:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Pavansur ( talk) 06:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Re: copyright question. The 50 Greatest Cartoons is a 1994 book about the fifty greatest cartoons of all time. This table list of Wikipedia articles, which lists the cartoons mentioned in that book, has been repeatedly removed as a copyright violation. So, my question — is that table list of Wikipedia articles a copyright violation, just because those particular cartoons are mentioned in that book? Furthermore, at least three of those cartoons listed, Felix in Hollywood, Gertie the Dinosaur and Steamboat Willie are in the public domain, so the authors of that book can't claim any copyright status over those particular cartoons, and I'm failing to see how any of these Wikipedia cartoon articles being listed would be a copyright violation in relation to that book. If this isn't the correct board for this question, please advise where I should ask. Thanks.
And also, how is this different from these films (Wikipedia articles) being listed in The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 from Sight and Sound magazine, or these films (again, Wikipedia articles) being listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, or these films (again, Wikipedia articles) being listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills, both from the American Film Institute. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
WMF legal has ruled on the issue in the past: reproduction of a list that was compiled by any form of creative effort is a copyright violation(from article talk page – Alleged copyvio). I actually own a copy of this book, and for instance, number one on the list in the book is What's Opera, Doc?, which consists of pages 30-36 in the book, with intricate details and commentary about the cartoon, and all we have on the table list is the cartoon, rank and release year. So I don't see how a bare-bones list of this type infringes upon the authors "creative effort", when we are not reproducing any of those intricate details and commentary from the book. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The ranking is a copyrightable element in its own right due to the creative effort used in compiling the list. In fact, AFI has a whole series of articles. Seems strange to me there is no consistency, 50 cartoons can't be listed, but 100 or 25 films can be listed, when creativity was used in generating the ranking in all of these lists. I guess we have different standards for different articles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The source of this image (Hebrew wiki) states that this image has been released into public domain by IDF so can someone fix that Waleed ( talk) 14:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Wikimedia Israel/IDF Spokesperson's Unit}}
so help me out with that
Waleed (
talk)
14:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I recently uploaded an image of the wiphala of the Kuntisuyu, which like the Chinchaysuyu and Antisuyu, has a variant on the wiphala design most recognize ( Qullasuyu) specifically representing that suyu. Unfortunately however, the other wiphala are criminally underrepresented beyond some use from fellow Andeans, and I had to screenshot an image of this wiphala from this Reddit post. Because this image was a screenshot of a wiphala that I couldn’t find anywhere else, I’m completely lost on how I should tag its copyright status. I’ve never done this before, and I simply wanted to add the missing wiphala to help complete the quadfecta. I’d appreciate some assistance on adding the copyright status. Intichkanmi7378 ( talk) 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning to upload an image of the original painting for "Lobo #1" from 1990 by Simon Bisley to enhance the related article. Before proceeding, I want to ensure that my approach complies with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Here's my plan:
Additionally, I have resized the original image to a resolution of 300x453 pixels to further comply with fair use guidelines. (300x 453 px). My primary motivation is to present the most relevant and popular portrayal of Lobo. Could you please confirm if this approach is in line with the guidelines or suggest any modifications needed?
Thank you! Ketzalcoat ( talk) 15:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Addtech logo.jpg is essentially a text-logo, but there might be a tad of creativity to it. It's find as non-free, but I'm not sure it needs to be treated as such. Any opinions on whether this would be OK to relicense as {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} even if it would be considered eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO Sweden?
File:Duearity - logo.png is also a Swedish logo uploaded by the same person. This one is a bit more than text, but i'm not sure whether the maze-like element on the left is enough for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The article where File:TRENDS Research & Advisory logo.jpg is being used has been nominated for deletion; so, depending on that outcome, this could end up being deleted per WP:F5. However, I'm wondering whether the shading-effect giving the sphere a 3D appearance is significant enough for this to need to be treated as non-free. There's nothing in c:COM:UAE about the TOO of UAE copyright law, but perhaps this could be OK to relicense as {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the copyright status of File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto with Yahya Khan and Ghulam Ishaq Khan.png. It does seem to be PD now per c:COM:Pakistan, but it would've still been eligible for copyright protection in Pakistan on January 1, 1996 (Pakistan's URAA date), right? This seems to indicate per c:COM:HIRTLE that copyright protection in the US lasts for 95 years after creation. Is this a correct understanding of things? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:CSD § F8 and keep local. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
03:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Nigel Henderson.jpg was uploaded as non-free and is sourced to the National Portrait Gallery, London. The image appears to be an official Royal Navy photo taken in 1957. I'm wondering whether this needs to be treated as non-free given c:COM:UK since Crown copyright for photos seems to be 50 years from the date of creation/publication according to File:UK Crown copyright flowchart.pdf. It seems unlikely the NPG is the originl copyright holder of the photo and more likely its claim of copyright ownership has to do with the digitlization of the photo given National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. Since Commons tends to ignore NPG claims when it comes to content like this, I'm wondering if Wikiepdia can do the same and relicense the photo as PD. The photo was still under copyright protection in the UK on January 1, 1996 (the UK's URAA date), though. and might still need to be treated as non-free jsut because of that. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
On commons the file is the same except it's not an svg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Film4_logo_2018.png but it's marked with PD-textlogo instead of PD-ineligible-USOnly|the United Kingdom. Which one is correct? Should the image be removed from enwiki or commons? @ Xplora8 @ AxG PaperHuman ( talk) 19:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I've uploaded the photo File:Mabel Lucie Attwell.jpg of Mabel Lucie Attwell under a non-free rationale. I'm unsure whether it is in the public domain, though it is entirely possible. It is from the National Portrait Gallery and is labeled "circa 1924", but I can find no evidence of when it was first published. Is this the best place to ask this kind of question or should I take it to c:COM:VPC? gobonobo + c 14:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
File:America-250-logo.jpg is listed, in good faith, as public domain. It does appear on the Library of Congress website, albeit on a blog there. But other U.S. Government websites, such as the VA and IMLS, show a very similar logo with a "TM" at the upper right. The non-government website of the Museum of the American Revolution also shows a TM version with this statement: "The AMERICA 250™ trademark and logo is owned and licensed by the United States Semiquincentennial Commission. Unauthorized use of the AMERICA 250™ trademarks is strictly prohibited." I know a trademark is not a copyright, but is it possible to trademark something in the public domain? If not, can this logo be used at United States Semiquincentennial as fair use? Station1 ( talk) 21:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I uploaded an image of the upcoming new Pennsylvania License Plate File:PA LicensePlate 2025.png and got a warning about the copyright status on my talk page. Would it have the same status as File:Pennsylvania 2017 license plate.jpg since they are both from the same official site? 7s3s ( talk) 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
{{db-g7|rationale=}}
to the top of the editing window, click on "Show preview" to check your work and then click on "Publish changesd" if everything looks OK. In the |rationale=
parameter field, you can just add the reason while you're requesting deletion. Before you click, "Publish changes", though, you should also leave an
edit summary explaining why you're requesting deletion. The file should be deleted shortly thereafter depending on how quickly it's noticed by an administrator. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)File:Nova Religio low res cover.jpg seems to be a fairly simple combination of colors and text; even the logo-like element is nothing more than the letters "N" and "R" inside a circle which is then inside a square. Is there any reason this can't be relicensed as {{ PD-simple}} and tagged for a move to Commons given that Nova Religio is publsihed in the US? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
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.
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.
| ||
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
---|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
image on ruwiki. This image was uploaded in 2015 as copyright fair use. Is it still copyright in 2024, the 100 year anniversary of publication? Desired destination is Commons or enwiki, for use in Plutonia (novel) as a free image not fair use. -- Green C 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
File:Pi Lambda Sigma Pin.png was uploaded and licensed as non-free, but that only would seem to be necessary if the pin itself is eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:CB#Jewelry. If the pin isn't eligible for copyright protection (e.g. it's {{ PD-US-1989}} or {{ PD-US-no notice}}, then a non-free license just for the photo would fail WP:FREER. On the other hand, even if the pin is eligible for copyright protection, then it would still seem that a non-free photo wouldn't be allowed per FREER since a freely licensed one could be uploaded and used instead, with a non-free license still being provided for the pin. FWIW, the design of the pin seems fairly simply and might actually be below c:COM:TOO US which means the only thing that matters would be the licensing of the photo, right? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello,
Could you please provide detailed instructions on how to properly upload and tag the cover photo on Wikipedia what belongs to a Journal?
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Kind regards,
Kateryna
Research Assistant~~~~ Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics ( talk) 11:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Open question.
Mexican peso has 103 non-free files in it and is undoubtedly the page with most non-free files on Wikipedia, beating the second place by some 80 points. Articles are structured and worded to minimize the total number of items of non-free content that are included within the encyclopedia, where it is reasonable to do so.
can be read at
WP:FU#Number of items. So is this use of 103 non-free files really warranted?
Jonteemil (
talk)
16:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Rissani Jewish Cemetery.jpeg is a non-free photo of a cemetary currently being used in Rissani#History. The photo is being used in an image gallery (which is not really allowed) per WP:NFG, but there are a few sentences about the cemetary in the paragraph located above. I'm not sure whether there's enough though to meet WP:NFCC#8, but I'm also wondering whether this needs to be treated as non-free. c:COM:FOP Morocco seems to indicate that there's only a very limited type of freedom of panorama allowed under Moroccan copyright law, but it seems that this would be OK under US copyright law. Is there any way for this file to be treated as PD locally under US copyright law? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
In the article about artist/scupltor Miles Teves, there is a paragraph under "Reception" that praises a specific piece of Teves's art created for the cover the role-playing game Skyrealms of Jorune. I tried to add a non-free image of trhis artwork in order to illustrate this, using the rationale "This artwork is specifically mentioned in the critical reception quoted in the article." However it was quickly taken down by JJMC89 bot because "No valid non-free use rationale for this page." Can someone provide guidance on what to do to reinstall this illustration in this article. Guinness323 ( talk) 15:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
|article=
parameter (the part that states "Use in article (WP:NFCC#7))
in the non-free use rationale you provided for the file; yet, you added the file to
Miles Teves#Reception. That bot has been tasked with finding images being used in ways that do not comply with
WP:NFCC#10c and the main way it does this is by looking for a link to the article where the file is being used in the non-free use rationale provided for the file. The non-free use rationale is telling the bot that the file is going to be used in "Skyrealms of Jorune", but the bot is seeing used in "Miles Teves" instead; so, it does what it's been tasked to do and removes the file per
WP:NFCCE from the article or articles where it's being used without a corresponding non-free use rationale. The bot isn't reading the non-free rationale in the sense that you or I might read it. It's not trying to assess whether the file meets non-free content use criterion
WP:NFCC#8. It's only looking for a technical connection between the non-free use rationale provided for the file and the article where it's seeing the file being used. Changing the article parameter of the non-free use rationale from |article=Skyrealms of Jorune
to |article=Miles Teves
("Miles Teves#Reception" might even be better) should stop the bot removing the file. Finally, tweaking the file's non-free use rationale should resolve the reason why the bot removed the file, but it doesn't automatically mean the file's non-free use is beyond reproach. Someone could still challenge the file's non-free use
if they think it fails any of the other non-free content use criteria. Video game cover art is, first and foremost, generally considered to be acceptable when used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the video game itself. Trying to use such cover art in other articles or in other ways can be trickier and harder to justify per
WP:NFC#CS; so, the more critical commentary (supported by citations to reliable sources) you can add to that section of the Teves article about how the cover art is representative of Teves work, the better your chances of avoiding the file's non-free use being challenged. What 's there so far isn't bad per se, but it puts a lot of weight on entirely one source and one person's interpretation of the significance of the work. If you can show that others have been discussing the cover in such a way as well, it might show present a more balanced picture of critical acclaim the cover received. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
18:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I am asking about the illustration of Tlingit people catching salmon on this web page. Is it reasonable to conclude that this illustration is the work of an employee of the U.S. federal government and therefore in the public domain? Is the NPS notation at the end of the description of the illustration an indication of that? Thanks. Cullen328 ( talk) 23:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
I loaded an image with a wrong name. Issue has been rectified except an administrator needs to speedy this file away. Thanks. —tim /// Carrite ( talk) 18:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
I recently added a picture File:Chang'e 6 lander and ascender.jpg to the info box of wiki page 2024 in spaceflight, as I think this is a pretty significant event in spaceflight this year. However, it was removed by JJMC89 bot the next day, citing WP:NFCC violation(s). I tried to read the wiki Non-free content criteria, but was a bit overwhelmed. From what I can gather, there is no free equivalent for this picture as it's one of a kind, and is only available from CNSA--their rover took the picture. Besides, this picture is used on another wiki page Chang'e 6 so it must be valid?! Can someone knowledgeable in this area help me decipher this? Thanks in advance! Showmebeef ( talk) 07:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I'm working on Gwoyeu Romatzyh, and a source I'm working from already has just what I felt I needed to add: a very basic table listing a handful of words and how they appear when written using different systems. I know information itself is not copyrightable, and there's not a lot of "work" here other than picking representative examples, but I still figured I'd ask whether it's alright to use the same examples adapted to a table in the article? Cited, it goes without saying. Remsense 诉 01:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am working on creating an article relating to the Cuban revolution, and in finding images to use for the article I came across this photo on Ecured. I know that Ecured is very different from Wikipedia as it was created by the Cuban government and also has different rules, however I feel the fact that it was uploaded here and has remained there for 14 years without being taken down due to copyright violations may mean to me that it is not a copyright violation. However, the page itself does not present anything regarding it's copyright status, only a fountain bringing a a link to a news website. I searched the website for anything regarding the photo but I could not find anything. I don't feel 100% like I can use this so I am posting here to see if this image is okay to use Pavansur ( talk) 06:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Pavansur ( talk) 06:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Re: copyright question. The 50 Greatest Cartoons is a 1994 book about the fifty greatest cartoons of all time. This table list of Wikipedia articles, which lists the cartoons mentioned in that book, has been repeatedly removed as a copyright violation. So, my question — is that table list of Wikipedia articles a copyright violation, just because those particular cartoons are mentioned in that book? Furthermore, at least three of those cartoons listed, Felix in Hollywood, Gertie the Dinosaur and Steamboat Willie are in the public domain, so the authors of that book can't claim any copyright status over those particular cartoons, and I'm failing to see how any of these Wikipedia cartoon articles being listed would be a copyright violation in relation to that book. If this isn't the correct board for this question, please advise where I should ask. Thanks.
And also, how is this different from these films (Wikipedia articles) being listed in The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 from Sight and Sound magazine, or these films (again, Wikipedia articles) being listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, or these films (again, Wikipedia articles) being listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills, both from the American Film Institute. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
WMF legal has ruled on the issue in the past: reproduction of a list that was compiled by any form of creative effort is a copyright violation(from article talk page – Alleged copyvio). I actually own a copy of this book, and for instance, number one on the list in the book is What's Opera, Doc?, which consists of pages 30-36 in the book, with intricate details and commentary about the cartoon, and all we have on the table list is the cartoon, rank and release year. So I don't see how a bare-bones list of this type infringes upon the authors "creative effort", when we are not reproducing any of those intricate details and commentary from the book. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The ranking is a copyrightable element in its own right due to the creative effort used in compiling the list. In fact, AFI has a whole series of articles. Seems strange to me there is no consistency, 50 cartoons can't be listed, but 100 or 25 films can be listed, when creativity was used in generating the ranking in all of these lists. I guess we have different standards for different articles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
The source of this image (Hebrew wiki) states that this image has been released into public domain by IDF so can someone fix that Waleed ( talk) 14:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
{{Wikimedia Israel/IDF Spokesperson's Unit}}
so help me out with that
Waleed (
talk)
14:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I recently uploaded an image of the wiphala of the Kuntisuyu, which like the Chinchaysuyu and Antisuyu, has a variant on the wiphala design most recognize ( Qullasuyu) specifically representing that suyu. Unfortunately however, the other wiphala are criminally underrepresented beyond some use from fellow Andeans, and I had to screenshot an image of this wiphala from this Reddit post. Because this image was a screenshot of a wiphala that I couldn’t find anywhere else, I’m completely lost on how I should tag its copyright status. I’ve never done this before, and I simply wanted to add the missing wiphala to help complete the quadfecta. I’d appreciate some assistance on adding the copyright status. Intichkanmi7378 ( talk) 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning to upload an image of the original painting for "Lobo #1" from 1990 by Simon Bisley to enhance the related article. Before proceeding, I want to ensure that my approach complies with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Here's my plan:
Additionally, I have resized the original image to a resolution of 300x453 pixels to further comply with fair use guidelines. (300x 453 px). My primary motivation is to present the most relevant and popular portrayal of Lobo. Could you please confirm if this approach is in line with the guidelines or suggest any modifications needed?
Thank you! Ketzalcoat ( talk) 15:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Addtech logo.jpg is essentially a text-logo, but there might be a tad of creativity to it. It's find as non-free, but I'm not sure it needs to be treated as such. Any opinions on whether this would be OK to relicense as {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}} even if it would be considered eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO Sweden?
File:Duearity - logo.png is also a Swedish logo uploaded by the same person. This one is a bit more than text, but i'm not sure whether the maze-like element on the left is enough for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The article where File:TRENDS Research & Advisory logo.jpg is being used has been nominated for deletion; so, depending on that outcome, this could end up being deleted per WP:F5. However, I'm wondering whether the shading-effect giving the sphere a 3D appearance is significant enough for this to need to be treated as non-free. There's nothing in c:COM:UAE about the TOO of UAE copyright law, but perhaps this could be OK to relicense as {{ PD-ineligible-USonly}}. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the copyright status of File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto with Yahya Khan and Ghulam Ishaq Khan.png. It does seem to be PD now per c:COM:Pakistan, but it would've still been eligible for copyright protection in Pakistan on January 1, 1996 (Pakistan's URAA date), right? This seems to indicate per c:COM:HIRTLE that copyright protection in the US lasts for 95 years after creation. Is this a correct understanding of things? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WT:CSD § F8 and keep local. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
03:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Nigel Henderson.jpg was uploaded as non-free and is sourced to the National Portrait Gallery, London. The image appears to be an official Royal Navy photo taken in 1957. I'm wondering whether this needs to be treated as non-free given c:COM:UK since Crown copyright for photos seems to be 50 years from the date of creation/publication according to File:UK Crown copyright flowchart.pdf. It seems unlikely the NPG is the originl copyright holder of the photo and more likely its claim of copyright ownership has to do with the digitlization of the photo given National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. Since Commons tends to ignore NPG claims when it comes to content like this, I'm wondering if Wikiepdia can do the same and relicense the photo as PD. The photo was still under copyright protection in the UK on January 1, 1996 (the UK's URAA date), though. and might still need to be treated as non-free jsut because of that. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
On commons the file is the same except it's not an svg: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Film4_logo_2018.png but it's marked with PD-textlogo instead of PD-ineligible-USOnly|the United Kingdom. Which one is correct? Should the image be removed from enwiki or commons? @ Xplora8 @ AxG PaperHuman ( talk) 19:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
I've uploaded the photo File:Mabel Lucie Attwell.jpg of Mabel Lucie Attwell under a non-free rationale. I'm unsure whether it is in the public domain, though it is entirely possible. It is from the National Portrait Gallery and is labeled "circa 1924", but I can find no evidence of when it was first published. Is this the best place to ask this kind of question or should I take it to c:COM:VPC? gobonobo + c 14:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
File:America-250-logo.jpg is listed, in good faith, as public domain. It does appear on the Library of Congress website, albeit on a blog there. But other U.S. Government websites, such as the VA and IMLS, show a very similar logo with a "TM" at the upper right. The non-government website of the Museum of the American Revolution also shows a TM version with this statement: "The AMERICA 250™ trademark and logo is owned and licensed by the United States Semiquincentennial Commission. Unauthorized use of the AMERICA 250™ trademarks is strictly prohibited." I know a trademark is not a copyright, but is it possible to trademark something in the public domain? If not, can this logo be used at United States Semiquincentennial as fair use? Station1 ( talk) 21:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I uploaded an image of the upcoming new Pennsylvania License Plate File:PA LicensePlate 2025.png and got a warning about the copyright status on my talk page. Would it have the same status as File:Pennsylvania 2017 license plate.jpg since they are both from the same official site? 7s3s ( talk) 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
{{db-g7|rationale=}}
to the top of the editing window, click on "Show preview" to check your work and then click on "Publish changesd" if everything looks OK. In the |rationale=
parameter field, you can just add the reason while you're requesting deletion. Before you click, "Publish changes", though, you should also leave an
edit summary explaining why you're requesting deletion. The file should be deleted shortly thereafter depending on how quickly it's noticed by an administrator. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)File:Nova Religio low res cover.jpg seems to be a fairly simple combination of colors and text; even the logo-like element is nothing more than the letters "N" and "R" inside a circle which is then inside a square. Is there any reason this can't be relicensed as {{ PD-simple}} and tagged for a move to Commons given that Nova Religio is publsihed in the US? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)