Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Egypt copyright law (1954)

Hi there. I see User:Ashashyou has placed this image Mahmoud Khalil Al-Housary under public domain by the virtue of Egypt's 1954 law that was applicable on works published prior to 2002.

So, would the Qur'an (audio) recitations of the famous Egyptian reciters (El Minshawi, Al Hussary, Abdul Basit Abdus Samad, Mustafa Ismail) fall under public domain too, especially since most of them published their works well before 2002 regardless of whether anyone claims legal rights to the recitals (record companies or firms that acquired rights to the recordings post their deaths or secured rights in other countries)?

Thanks.

Originally asked here: User_talk:Ashashyou#Egypt_copyright_laws and here Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1068#Egypt_copyright_law_(1954).

Stanley Cursiter image questions

Hey, I've been doing some editing of the Stanley Cursiter article(s) and got a couple of questions.

1: Would it be permissible to use File:Cursiter, The Regatta.jpg on a different language wiki article, specifically the Scots article on Stanley Cursieter (given the whole 70 year copyright thing), and if it is allowed how would I do so? I'm asking here because it's got a warning template on it forbidding uploading to Commons due to it still being in copyright in the UK, and scowiki appears to lack an actual image policy.

2: There's a portrait of Cursiter taken by Lafayette in 1934 which was given to the National Portrait Gallery in 1989 (link). The site appears to offer a "Creative Commons" version, and I'm a bit unsure of how to proceed with obtaining/using the image, such as can it be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or just locally on wikis under NFCC, if at all. I've tried contacting the NPG to ascertain its copyright status but their site has been returning errors. Thanks CiphriusKane (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi CiphriusKane. Regarding your first question, that file is uploaded locally to English Wikipedia which means it can only be used on English Wikipedia. So, in order for it to be used on Scottish Wikipedia, you will either (1) have to upload the file to Commons or (2) upload the file locally to Scottish Wikipedia. If the file is still protected by copyright in the UK, (1) is probably not an option unless you can get the consent of the copyright holder. Whether you can upload the file locally to Scottish Wikipedia might depend upon c:COM:Scotland or whether Scottish Wikipedia allows fair use content. Some Wikipedias do but others don’t, and I’m not sure whether Scottish Wikipedia has its own version of WP:NFC.

As for your second question, try looking at c:COM:L. The photo doesn’t seem old enough to be PD simply because of its age, but if there’s a version of it released under a license accepted by Commons, it should be OK to upload. Just for reference, not all Creative Commons licenses are the same and those that place any type of restriction on commercial use or derivative use won’t be accepted by Commons. I didn’t notice a license on the NPG page you linked to above, but they do seem to be selling the photo. If they’re selling copies of the photo, they might not have released it under an acceptable license to protect their commercial interests. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a version of the portrait image licensed for limited non-commercial use and specifies it can be used "online in scholarly and non-profit publications and websites" here, so would uploading it to the local wikis (as non-profit websites) be acceptable? CiphriusKane (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Such a license is, unfortunately, still too restrictive per c:COM:L and WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files. The CC licenses Wikipedia and Commons accept are listed at c:COM:CC and "educational use only" or "non-profit use only" are not a type of "free license" that either accepts. Basically, the only types of free license that are accepted are those where the copyright holder is giving everyone in the world permission to download the file at anytime and use for any purpose. The license you've described above would be treated as non-free content locally on English Wikipedia, but wouldn't be accepted by Commons per c:COM:FAIR. I've got no idea about Scots Wikipedia since there's nothing listed about that here. You may have to ask about that at Scots Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Three images tagged for deletion

Three images I've uploaded ([1], [2], [3]) on Wikipedia under the fair use rationale, have been tagged for deletion which I was notified about on my talk page [4]

I wanted to check if I've understood it correctly - is the fair use rationale I've used not sufficient if it could be argued that it would be possible to find equivalent free images in the future, or just that there is doubt that there isn't one already available?

I've searched quite extensively for images to use for skyline images of Taghavard, Khtsaberd and Hin Tagher, on Commons and elsewhere. Khtsaberd and Hin Tagher have been heavily shelled and are currently uninhabited, and Taghavard is on the frontlines after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, and access isn't currently available for the inhabitants so I considered it to be fair use with regard to the "historical image" description. AntonSamuel (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

AntonSamuel: The answer is these three images can be replaced with freely licensed ones. The places exist so someone can go there, though maybe not right now, and take a photo that they release freely. For that reason they immediately fail the 1st requirement of our non-free criteria which is actually much stricter than fair use law. While you may not have found freely licensed images you may want to keep on trying if you want to include them in those articles. You could always ask the current copyright holders if they would release them under a free licence we accept. Non-free use of images is generally reserved for images that can never be created, such a dead people, after a suitable amount of time has passed to try to find an image, or places and things that no longer exist, such as File:Railway Road bomb 1973.jpeg or File:Horton House image from 1927.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Album Covers, Fair Use?

Hi! I'd like to know if I could upload the album cover for Garibaldi Guard! because I saw other albums have pictures, but I have no clue how the copyright and uploading process works, thanks! SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 16:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

SnazzyInfinity: For album covers used in an article about that album, the cover art can be uploaded for inclusion in the infobox. The following two templates exist that need to be used together: {{Album rationale}} and {{Non-free album cover}}. Check them out to see how to use them. ww2censor (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Image upload

Hi Team,

I have created a biographical article for a public figure and I would like to upload images from his Facebook page and his websites. Do you accept such sources or is it enough to just mention the url or do I need to get a permission for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineee90 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dineee90. Please take a look at c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files, but basically the copyright holder will need to give their WP:CONSENT for any of there work to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. You can find some examples of how to ask for someone’s consent at WP:PERMISSION. Wikipedia does, however, allow certain types of copyrighted content to be uploaded with out such permission as Wikipedia:Non-free content (Commons doesn’t all any such content), but its use is highly restricted. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Non-free Microsoft screenshot license and low-resolution

If a screenshot is being used under Microsoft's non-free license, does it also need to be low-resolution? I know Wikipedia holds itself to stricter rules than necessary when dealing with fair-use, but this is an actual license rather than fair-use. Sunmist (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sunmist: Yes. The template says that the image must comply with the WP:NFCC criteria. RudolfRed (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

BBC photo of Alasdair Milne - deceased person but no identification of photographer - permission granted but no licence

Dear all,

I have emailed the BBC and received permission to use the following image: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/media/images/65194000/jpg/_65194913_milne_bbc_1983.jpg from https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20967247

However, they have not provided a licence to use the photo under? What are the next steps?

Greenpark79 (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Greenpark79: Essentially much the same reply as the one I provided below. However, as a person deceased some years ago, you may be able to use the photo on this wiki under our strict non-free copyright criteria policy, if a reasonable search for a freely licenced image has not given any result. If your only likelyhood is to use a non-free image there are several much better images to be found online that seem superior to the BBC one you are interested in. ww2censor (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Tom Burns (sociologist) photos and permission granted but no licence

Dear all,

I have been in touch with Charlotte MacDonald via the University of Edinburgh's website about Tom Burns - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Burns_(sociologist). They have kindly provided photos and permission of their late father. Do I require them to provide a licence or can I upload the photos on their behalf?

Many thanks, Greenpark79 (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Greenpark79: You need to determine who is the copyright holder of the photo, which is usually the photographer and not the person who happens to own the photo. Only the original copyright holder, or their heirs, can tell you under what licence they are releasing the photo and it may be necessary for them to verify that with the WP:OTRS team. Indeed, yes, you can upload the photo but don't waste your time doing that until you have clarity on the copyright status and the possibility of a proper release statement that OTRS accepts. ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

ASMFC

Hello, what is the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission from a copyright point of view? Is it some kind of organisation for which PD-US-Gov is applicable on their media products? I'm thinking about grabbing some fisheries statistics that are presented on said site as JPEG images for illustration on relevant fish articles. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC) PS. Please notify me (pinging?) while replying, I'm a German editor seldom active here on EN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand-Duc (talk • contribs) 08:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc:. Please try to remember to WP:SIGN you posts (particularly if you're asking to be pinged by those responding) so that editors don't have to dig through a page's history to find the WP:DIFF for your post.

Only agencies directly operated and controlled by the US federal governmant are coverd by {{PD-USGov}} as explained in WP:PD#US government works. The US government may be involved in lots organiztions and agencies in some way, but in some cases (like the United States Post Office) they might be technically considered "private" or "independent" to some degree. Most state, county and local government organizations are not covered by "PD-USgov" so anything you find on their official websites, etc. is going to be considered to be not PD. States like California and Florida have laws which make works created by state, country and local governmental employees PD, but the [remain 48 states don't seem to have such laws. The ASMFC appears to involve state governments; so, even though it might've been chartered by the US Congress, my guess is that content created by its employees isn't going to be covered under "PD-USGov". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, and sorry for that I didn't sign an apposed postscriptum separately, when I used only a single edit for the query here.

So, it is more likely than not that there's no blank public domain statute for material from the ASMFC. I am currently thinking about adding some flesh to de:Pseudopleuronectes americanus, the Winter flounder, where the catch statistics (JPEG) from here would be nice. I guess that this is a case of "unprotected bare facts" when it comes to raw numbers (but the resolution of the graph seems to be too low to get those raw data for reproduction using any wiki graph template), but does the color coding already warrant copyright protection? Do you or somebody else have some clues about the threshold of originality? After a quick glance at commons:COM:TOO, it's impossible to tell for me... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm unable to get the links you've added above to work, but I also am not familiar with German Wikipedia and how that project handles image licensing; I don't know whether German Wikipedia accepts fair use content or otherwise allows files to be uploaded locally. If it doesn't, then you will probably need to upload the files to Commons as permitted by c:COM:Germany. On English Wikipedia, it sounds like the content you're describing would fall under WP:FREER which means that a non-free image of a graph would probably be considered replaceable non-free use since the same information could probably be presented in a way that didn't involve uploading a copyrighted image per WP:GRAPHS or maybe even MOS:TEXTASIMAGES. The US TOO is relatively high in comparison to some other countries and the US doesn't apply "sweat of the brow" any longer; so, simple shapes, text, and colors aren't typically considered copyrightable elements in and of themselves, but things might be different when combined together in a graph as explained in c:COM:CB#Scientific or technical diagrams and c:Commons:TOO#Charts. If you want to know whether Commons will accept such content, you can try asking at c:COM:VPC and see what some others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-free album covers

Hi! Could you please help me with something? On the Russian Wikipedia, I got into a dispute with an administrator named Maxinvestigator over the cover image of the Ellie Goulding version of "Your Song". He removed the image from the infobox for that version and doesn't want to put it back. He insists that only one fair-use image is allowed per article, and I just can't convince him otherwise. I've told him several times already that the Russian Wikipedia has the same fair use policy as the English one and that the usage of that image complies with the NFCC, but he doesn't understand. (The Ruwiki discussion is located here.)
And it's not all. After I pointed him to the copy of the same image on the English Wikipedia, he came here and attempted to delete the image here as well. Could something be done, please? I'm desperate to convince him to leave the image be. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

P. S. I've just noticed this:

• User talk:SnapSnap#Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ellie Goulding - Your Song.png
• User talk:SnapSnap#Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Rod Stewart - Your Song.png

Could something be done, please? Like, is it maybe possible for some Wikimedia official to come by and just tell Maxinvestigator to leave the image on Wikimedia's servers cause it doesn't break any laws? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Moscow Connection: WP:NFCC#3a states: "Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information" which does not preclude using more than one image. The Russian version (#3) seems to essentially say the same but concentrates its wording on the use of one image. However, generally here, for albums, songs or videos, this is allowable where the 2nd image is so different from the first. Where the DVD, album and video use essentially the same image with small differences, then that 2nd image is not allowed. Hope that helps. ww2censor (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Actially, the Russian version of WP:NFCC#3 adds: "A non-free file must identify the main object of the article or specifically illustrate its important points or sections" ("Несвободный файл должен идентифицировать основной объект статьи или специфично иллюстрировать её важные пункты или разделы"). So it says explicitly that there can be one non-free image for every important section. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Moscow Connection. I'm not sure whether the "Russian version" referred to above is a translation of the English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy or whether it's something completely separate, but each Wikipedia project has it's own policies and guidelines and these might not always be the same. So, what they do on Russian Wikipedia when it comes to non-free content use doesn't apply to non-free content use on English Wikipedia any more than what English Wikipedia does would apply to Russian Wikipedia. What Ww2censor posted above is pretty much how such non-free content use is assessed when it comes to English Wikipedia. Of course, sometimes a particular non-free use is not so clear and not everybody is in agreement as to whether it meets the WP:NFCCP. In such cases, often the best thing to do is try and see what the consensus might be by bringing things up for discussion at WP:FFD.

Finally, just for reference, the are no "Wikipedia officials" at least not on English Wikipedia. We are all pretty much equal as editors. There are administrators and other editors with special user rights, but for the most part we are all the same. When it comes to non-free content use on English Wikipedia, the burden tends to fall on the editor wanting to use the file in a certain way to convince others that the usage is policy compliant as explained in WP:NFCCE; so, if a file you uploaded has been tagged or nominated for speedy deletion and you disagree, you should explain how the file's use meets relevant policy on the file's talk page. All files tagged for speedy deletion are going to be reviewed by an administrator; so, if you contest a file's deletion here at MCQ or on some user talk page, the reviewing administrator is almost certainly not going to see the relevant discussion. You can add the template {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed}} to the file page right below the speedy deletion template to let the reviewing admin know to check the file's talk page for further discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly: the Russian versions I referred to was, if you clicked on the link I provided, the actual Russian wiki version that I did a down and dirty Google translation of to get a sense of their local requirements. More than that I cannot contribute but Moscow Connection's additional translation comment also suggests more than one non-free can be acceptable there too. ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

While the above is all true, the additional cover version album art on Your Song is not something automatically guaranteed to be allowed per NFCC. Here, we should consider that if the cover single version needs the cover art separate from the original song being covered, and that is not something automatically covered under NFCI#1. Outright removal isn't appropriate but these are both questionable uses that don't just get a free pass for being single covers. --Masem (t) 16:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You're right, outright removal shouldn't be the solution. The files should have at least been listed for discussion instead of being tagged for speedy deletion. Aside from WP:NFCC#3a, there's also WP:NFCC#8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Only one artwork (that of the original song) is not enough to visually convey the cover versions. Hundreds of thousands of song articles include more than one non-free artwork to illustrate notable cover versions (oftentimes even more notable than the original song) and no one seems to bat an eyelash. I'm pretty sure most of these additional files have "questionable" use rationale descriptions. I'm not saying that's the ideal situation, I just don't see why Your Song is being singled out (mention WP:WHATABOUT all you want, I still don't see a reason). snapsnap ^(talk) 23:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we maybe notify the music project about this discussion? Cause there are thousands of articles with more than one non-free cover. We should discuss the situation as a whole rather than on a case to case basis.
If we don't discuss the matter as a whole once and for all, this will never end. From time to time there will appear a person who will single out a single image and insist on its deletion. In this particular case (User talk:SnapSnap#Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Rod Stewart - Your Song.png), I'm afraid you will have to go on arguing forever and will eventually be driven to exhaustion. I personally am going to just let the image be deleted from Ruwiki. Cause if I insist on keeping it, I will just get in trouble. I'm not really good at arguing and convincing people, so I usually just give up and move on. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What they do on Russian Wikipedia is of no concern to English Wikipedia. If you want to stop a file from being deleted from Russian Wikipedia, you will need to make you case to save the file on Russian Wikipedia.

You don't need to keep arguing with the person who tagged the English Wikipedia file for speedy deletion; in fact, you shouldn't. Anyone can tag a file for speedy deletion, but only an administrator can delete the file; so, if you disagree with the tag, post your reasons why on the file's talk page. If the reviewing administrator feels that more discussion is warranted, they will decline the tag and suggest as much; if the reviewing administrator feels the tagging was appropriate, they will delete the file. However, if you don't post anything on the file's talk page, the reviewing administrator will have no reason to think the tagging is being contested.

You can let a WikiProject know about this if you want. Just make sure you don't run afoul of WP:CANVASS. A {{Please see}} template is usually a good way to let others know about a discussion without running the risk of canvassing. However, what a WikiProject wants can't take precedence over a community-wide policy like WP:NFCC per WP:CONLEVEL. Everyone is welcome to participate in any such discusison, but WikiProject member comments aren't given any additional weight just because they're WikiProject member comments.

Articles about songs, particularly when the song has been covered multiple times, can sometimes be tricky to asses when it comes to non-free content use. This is because the common practice appears to be to make one article about a song (including all of it's cover versions) instead of making separate articles about each cover version. My personal opinion is that simply using a cover version's cover art in article just because it's a cover version is probably not warranted per WP:NFC#cite_note-3; however, if the cover version would itself meet WP:NSONG and just doesn't have it's own stand-alone article because the common practice is to put everything together, then probably such a non-free use could be justified. A non-free use rationale is supposed to be separate and specific to each particular use; so, an unclear rationale is not necessarily a reason for deleting a file if the use in question is otherwise non-free compliant. In other words, if the rationale is "broken", then just "fix" it. At the same time, a rationale in and of itself doesn't automatically make a particular non-free use policy compliant as explained in WP:JUSTONE. I'm sure you could look at lots of articles about songs and find multiple non-free files being used in them for various cover versions. In some cases, these additional files might be OK per policy, but it others they might not be. That's why, as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE, non-free use can often only be assessed on a case-by-case basis and not treated as all or nothing. That's what probably needs to be done here with respect to these two files. Challenge the speedy deletion by posting on the file's talk page and wait until an admin reviews the speedy deletion tag. If the reviewing admin feels the files don't qualify for speedy deletion but the person who tagged the files insists that they still be deleted, then they will need to start a discussion about them at FFD to see if that's the consensus. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you for your input. I see you've already contested both deletions. Although you've included a link to this discussion, I'll try to post something as well on the talk pages.

@Moscow Connection: I agree, perhaps this particular issue (multiple non-free artworks in a single article) should be discussed at WP:WPMU sometime in order to avoid unnecessary and/or misguided file deletions in the future. snapsnap ^(talk) 08:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

What are the rules which I must follow while adding a logo (which may be copyrighted) in a Wikipedia article?

I want to use the above file in this article: Johnson Grammar School. Are there any rules which I must follow? - Dfsibun (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dfsibun. Since the file is licensed as non-free content, each use of it will need to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are ten non-free content use criteria that need to be met each time a non-free file is used, and this file currently is failing non-free content use criterion #7; that's why it's been tagged for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5. The easiest way to fix this would be to add the file to an article, but you should only really do that if you feel the particular use also meets the other nince criteria. Generally, Wikipedia does all non-free logos to be uploaded and used in articles per item 2 of WP:NFCI when they are used for primarily identification purposes either at the top of or in the main infobox of stand-alone articles about the organization, etc. the logo is supposed to represent. So, if you want to use the logo in the infobox for Johnson Grammar School, the that should be OK; however, if you want to use the logo in some other way or in some other article, then it might be harder to justify the file's non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I've added the image in Johnson Grammar School. Is the image size appropriate or something needs to be changed? Please let me know. - Dfsibun (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The size of the an upload non-free file needs to meet WP:NFCC#3b (see WP:IMAGERES and WP:FILESIZE for more details); however, the size of a displayed image in an infobox needs to meet WP:IMAGESIZE , WP:IBI and MOS:ACCIM. The two things aren't necessarily the same and for the most part need to be dealt with separately. In the case of the file you uploaded, it seems to be already an acceptable size and should be fine. As for the displayed image size, most infobox templates these days are set up to automatically display an image to the most appropriate size for Wikipedia readers and there's almost always no need to try and "fix" an image to be a particular size. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Image tagged with no copyright holder question

Hi! Quick question regarding an non-free image I just uploaded (File:Curious George 2006 storyboard.jpg) under a claim of fair use. I got a message on my talk page from ImageTaggingBot letting me know that it was missing some source info, and it added a "no copyright holder" tag to the file. I added and/or restated information about the image's source, creator, and copyright holder to the template (see diff), and removed the tag as instructed, but it was re-added by the bot shortly afterwards. Could anyone help me see what's missing here?

FWIW, I used this file as a reference for uploading the image, since it was used in a similar context in its article (which is a featured article). Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance. —DanCherek (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I've updated both to use {{Non-free use rationale 2}} instead of {{navbox}}. That should resolve the issue. Why are people using navigation templates for non-free use rationales? — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks so much for your help, I appreciate it! —DanCherek (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Jammu and Kashmir High Court logo.jpg

File:Jammu and Kashmir High Court logo.jpg comprises two portions, text and a geometric shape surrounding a seal on which copyright has expired (see File:Seal of Jammu and Kashmir color.png). I don't think the file page licensing explains this as well as it could (e.g. there is only one template) but I'm not familiar with complex file licensing like this so I'd appreciate someone who is taking a look. Thryduulf (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The Pleasure Garden

The Pleasure Garden (1925 film) is identified and referenced as a 1925 film due to it first being shown in Germany in November of that year. The source cited in the article identifies The Pleasure Garden as a 1927 film due to that being its UK release date. Is The Pleasure Garden still under copyright or is it now in the public domain? PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@PDMagazineCoverUploading: it depends if you can categorically show that it was first shown in November 1925 in which case it will already be public domain in the US only and that doesn't appear to be referenced in the article. [5] which specialises in this type of thing doesn't appear to have established any earlier screening than the 1927 release in the UK. Nthep (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Surendran Shelini PhD thesis.pdf

The author of the thesis has released it's right via c:Commons:OTRS. The literature overview part of the document is highly valuable as a basis for a new Wikipedia article and shall be used soon. A user requested deletion of the file as it would be out of scope of commons. Where could the file be kept to prove the copyright has been released or how would you prove in English Wikipedia that the copyright of a file was deleted if not via OTRS? --Minihaa (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Minihaa: I tend to agree with the commons out of scope view because in general, theses are not considered to be reliable sources. Please refer to WP:SCHOLARSHIP for more details. If the file is deleted, the copyright is not deleted, and there is no way of keeping the OTRS release noted elsewhere other than within the OTRS system which is strictly private. I suspect you are out of luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your response! Please note that it is not about primary research as described in WP:SCHOLARSHIP but about the literature overview of the thesis, i. e. a summary of notable peer reviewed findings. I guess I was looking for WP:DONATETEXT. Cheers --Minihaa (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

But the assertion of the author's thesis, that certain findings are notable, is disqualified as original research. If that portion of the thesis was published in a peer-reviewed journal in the field, that's one thing; but a thesis in and of itself is not a reliable source. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

DFB badge logo

Reopening question not solved:

Hi, I'm not sure about the legacy of the DFB-logo to be uploaded, and used since 1930. Here you can find it.

As per the Commons Template, refering to German Public Corporations, it should be legible. Thus I'm not sure about the Threshold of originality which may be also legible as an unsufficient amount of original and creative authorship?? (Other valid examples here).

Here you can see similar cases, which may apply on DFB badge logo, but I prefered to ask first:

• Bundeswehr-Zulassungssiegel
• Gütezeichen für deutsche Markenbutter
• Kleines Bundessiegel

Thanks in advance. --Brgesto (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brgesto: I think you are better asking at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If the reply that you get there is that the logo is NOT public domain then you could upload it here as non-free. If you are told it is public domain then you can upload it to Commons. Nthep (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nthep: Thanks, I'd do so. --Brgesto (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Picture of a scientist

Hi! I was wondering if you could help me to figure out whether one of these images (1, 2, 3) are allowed to upload without permission? HovhannesKarapetyan (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)