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).

The Dawoodi Bohra Geometric Shape and Text Logo Copyright

Hi, I see that Quora's logo is placed in the public domain because it is not originally creative and has a bunch of text / geometric shape to it (ref: Commons:File:Quora_logo_2015.svg).

I wanted to ask if this logo of TheDawoodiBohras.com could be in public domain, too? The reasoning is: The geometric pattern that forms the central theme of the logo is taken from one of the floral designs uncovered during the renovations of Al Anwar mosque of Cairo (see: Commons:File:Al-Hakim_Mosque_-_Cairo_2.jpg), and the rest of it is text.

Thoughts?

The software icon in the SkiFree article main infobox

The article SkiFree has an image of a software icon, File:SkiFree icon.gif, in the article's main infobox. The question I have is whether the usage of the icon in the infobox is appropriate. The page https://ski.ihoc.net/ shows what appears to be the same icon in its "Sights and Sounds" section and states that the icon was made by "some graphic artist at Microsoft." The WP article indicates that the SkiFree game was released for multiple platforms. I do not know if different icons were used for all of the different releases. From what I remember, the iOS release of the SkiFree game from GearSprout has an icon that is similar to the icon in the article infobox. In the "Ports and releases" section of the WP article, there is a statement about SkiFree and proprietary rights and about GearSprout being able to do a version of the game. --Elegie (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the question whether the icon is copyrighted by Microsoft, or instead Gearsprout? In any event, does {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}} help clarify Microsoft's position on the issue if it is indeed their work? (The text of that template is for screenshots, but the permission is wider-ranging.) TheFeds 04:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheFeds: Thanks for the feedback. My guess is that if the SkiFree icon in the article infobox is copyrighted, then the copyright holder is most likely Microsoft. I am not aware of any copyright transfer agreements that included the depicted SkiFree icon. However, in the "Ports and releases" section of the article, there is a statement about Microsoft "'no longer claiming rights' to [the SkiFree and Rodent's Revenge software titles]", leaving the question as to whether the icon is public domain or copyrighted but freely reusable (the latter might be more likely.) --Elegie (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheFeds: A question that I have is whether there is a different icon or cover art that would be more appropriate for the article's main infobox. The article indicates that the SkiFree game was released for multiple platforms. On the page https://ski.ihoc.net/, Chris Pirih shows a "crappy Windows icon" that he created for the game; however, that icon may not have been used for any public releases of the game. It is of course possible that the SkiFree game is most closely associated with the Windows platform (though the article indicates that there was a release for DOS in the same year) as opposed to other platforms and systems; in that case, the current icon in the article infobox may be appropriate. --Elegie (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright, given that Gearsprout apparently has a commercial interest that depends on Microsoft being amenable to the commercialization of the game, I don't think it would be advisable to rely upon the cited source for updating the copyright status. The WP:OTRS process would be a better way to record Microsoft's position on the matter, if they can indeed be induced to make a statement. Also, I don't really know whether any particular icon or image is most appropriate; that seems like an editorial decision that could be raised on the talk page, or simply chosen based on an editor's discretion. Given that Microsoft allows use of software screenshots, if for example the yeti was a better image, it could be substituted. TheFeds 09:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheFeds: As of this writing, the icon is indicated as being non-free content. I myself do not feel inclined to change the information for File:SkiFree icon.gif to indicate, in particular, that Microsoft placed the icon into the public domain. In Wikipedia, it sometimes happens where a non-free icon for a proprietary software title is used in the article about that software title, in the article's main infobox, to assist readers in identifying the subject of the article. My thought is that such usage may be allowable. For SkiFree, if there is a screenshot that would fulfill the same purpose as the icon and which would be an allowed Microsoft screenshot, then such a screenshot might be a "freer" alternative to the icon. --Elegie (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this photo PD?

Hello, I'm looking for guidance on the copyright status of a photo available here. The copyright is given on the very photo as "Maull & Fox : 187A Piccadilly, London (1879-85)", for which a few details are given here. I found just a handful of photos from this source on Commons (e.g. File:Markham_Le_Fer_Taylor.jpg), though this may simply indicate that the collection includes mostly images of non-notable individuals. Would you say the photo is PD? For what it's worth, the individual depicted on it was born in 1863 and died in 1932, and the photo was taken sometime in the 1890s. Thank you for your feedback. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)‎

This is apparently in the public domain; the exact tag to use depends on the details. Am I correct the photo is intended to be of Shapurji Sorabji the father, not Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji the son? According to the article Henry Maull, Maull & Fox were no longer in partnership in the 1890s (only from 1879–1885, as stated in the caption). Apparently the business continued under that name for some time, perhaps at a different location. If it was taken by the individuals Maull and Fox, but perhaps at a different date (the subject could be aged no more than 22 during the time listed as their partnership, assuming correct date of birth information), {{PD-old-100}} applies given Maull and Fox's deaths in 1914 and 1907 respectively. If you are sure the photo was taken in the 1890s, but have no idea who published it or when, then I think it still barely passes the worst-case test (unpublished and anonymous) for {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Given some inferences about the authorship or publication, and even if the date was later than the 1890s, it might be subject to {{PD-US-expired}} (for the United States, which is sufficient for Wikipedia) and {{PD-old-70}} (for the United Kingdom, which in combination with the preceding would make the photo suitable for Wikimedia Commons). Perhaps someone knows how Maull & Fox images were typically published? TheFeds 07:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for the information. Yes, the photo is of Shapurji Sorabji, the composer's father. I will do a bit of checking to find out when it was first published and hope to get back to you soon. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I had a look into Marc-André Roberge's book Opus sorabjianum and found that the photo was reproduced in at least two sources a few years after it was taken. Here is the information provided:

"Institution of Civil Engineers (London), 'Supplementary Notice for Election into the Institution', 17 May 1887. Shapurji Sorabji was proposed by William Inglis. This Institution also owns the original of one of the few of Shapurji Sorabji's known photographs (the one reproduced in the Textile Mercury). The photograph, taken in 1887 by Maull & Fox, 187a Piccadilly, is contained in a binder entitled Photographs of Members, Associate Members, and Associates of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Cabinets." (p. 35)

"'Mr. Shapurjee Sorabjee: A Pioneer of India's Industrial Development', The Textile Mercury (Manchester), 1 April 1905: [2]-7 (p. 2 consists of a photograph of Shapurji Sorabji; the article was reprinted, probably at his request, for promotional purposes)" (p. 34)

I don't know if the photographer is specified in any source (and it was taken after the Maull & Fox partnership ended), but Sean Vaughn Owen's Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji: An Oral Biography simply gives "Unknown photographer" in the photo details (p. 328). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on the information you found in the Roberge book, I think this points to {{PD-US-expired}} + {{PD-UK-unknown}}, based on some inferences.

Roberge says that the Institution of Civil Engineers (London) owns the original photo, and held it in a binder. That's not enough information to say the Institute published it, because merely exhibiting an artwork isn't publication. Similarly, it's not clear how the Institute came to own the photo, whether it owned the copyright too, and thus whether it was permitted to publish it in the first place (or indeed whether it ever did so). But let's set that aside for the moment, because the Mercury sounds like it was an authorized publication in 1905, so we can disregard the possibility that the photo was unpublished. Regarding Maull and Fox, we can surmise that their partnership either granted each person a part interest in the copyright of joint works (e.g. the company is a simple partnership), or granted a corporate entity copyright ownership (e.g. they owned a limited liability company jointly). It may also be impossible to know for sure if Maull or Fox (or unknown assistants) personally contributed to this particular image.

So to return to the options I mentioned above, it sounds like we have established 1887 creation and no later than 1905 publication: this means {{PD-US-expired}} is valid (work published outside the U.S. by foreign national before 1925) and U.S. public domain status is enough to host on English Wikipedia. (Technically, there are some special cases, but it is very unlikely they apply. And if it was somehow published in the U.S. first before 1925, it would still be in the public domain.) Additionally, if you would like to also show U.K. public domain, I'd leave it up to your judgment whether to attribute to Maull, Fox, Maull & Fox (the company), other or a combination. {{PD-UK-unknown}} is called for if after "reasonable enquiry" the author is unknown, and I think we have no principled basis on which to say we know who authored the photo; merely to say that it is most likely the joint work of Maull and Fox and subject to U.K. copyright expiration 70 years after the death of the last author (1914). (If we instead wanted to assert the truth of the latter, then it would be {{PD-old-100}}.) Hopefully this logic seems reasonable. TheFeds 11:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheFeds: Thank you for the thorough response. If I wanted to upload the photo to Commons, would that be OK? And if so, what would be the safest template/argument to use for putting it there? Toccata quarta (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to Commons, you'd definitely need to include both PD-US-expired and PD-UK-unknown there in the license tags when you upload and add in elements of TheFeds' rationale to explain why as justification. It likely won't be deleted right away but someone may later find the evidence not available to ownership for example, but that's unlikely to happen, at which point we can rescue it back to en.wiki with the PD-US-expired tag. --Masem (t) 14:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Great! I have uploaded the image here and put the recommended templates on the page, along with comments based on the rationales TheFeds had provided above. I will eventually tweak the photo and crop it; as it is, it looks a bit "stretched" in the Sorabji article. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

One more question. I found out that a photograph of Sorabji's mother (taken sometime in the 1880s) was taken by a photographer who died in 1916. The photograph was first published in 2006. Could its inclusion on Commons be justified with {{PD-US-unpublished}} and {{PD-old-100}}, or would we have to settle for putting it on en.wikipedia and rely (solely) on {{PD-US-unpublished}}? Toccata quarta (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it known in which country the photo of Sorabji's mother was taken? Was the photographer John Chancellor (d. 1916) British? Since media on Commons has to be free in both the United States and in the source country of the work, we should ideally indicate some of that information to tag with {{PD-old-100}}. If we have reason to assume/know the U.K. is the place of origin, or that it was taken in one of the many other places where that tag is true, then I think your choice of tags is appropriate.

One additional tag that may apply is {{commons:Template:PD-EU-unpublished}}, based on Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Publication_right and Publication right. However, I'm not especially familiar with this right and whether (per the statement in the article) "permission of the owner of the corresponding physical medium" has been satisfied, or if that is even a correct statement of the law. Since we are only obliged to indicate copyright status, I would view correct publication right status tagging to be a valuable courtesy but not a requirement. TheFeds 10:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing information on where it was taken in the Sorabji-related sources I know, but the photographer was Irish (or at least based in Ireland) and Dublin is mentioned on the original photo (File:Madeline_Matilda_Worthy.jpg). Based on what is known about John Chancellor's life (see [1]) and Sorabji's family, it seems extremely unlikely that the photo was taken outside the British Isles, but I can't say so with complete certainty. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Madsen LAR

In the article List of battle rifles, the image of the Madsen LAR was removed for copyright violation, but this is the same one used in the article of the weapon itself, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madsen_light_automatic_rifle_LAR_M-62,_caliber_7.62_51_NATO,_fixed_butt.jpg) and in my copyright ignorance, it feels like a mistake - I don't see how one is appropriate, but not the other. Loafiewa (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Loafiewa. Please see WP:OTHERIMAGE for a more detailed explanation why, but basically each use of a non-free file needs to meet all ten non-free content use criteria; so, just because one use of a non-free file is considered policy compliant that doesn't mean all other uses of the same file are also necessarily policy compliant. A non-free image such as this is generally allowed when no free-equivalent image is considered likely to be created or found and when the image is used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the subject it depicts; so, that is why the image's use is considered acceptable in Madsen LAR. The use of the same image in other ways or in other articles is much harder to justify and non-free images being used to identify individuals entries of a list article are particularly not really allowed per WP:NFLISTS and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. The reason the bot removed the file was because of WP:NFCC#10c (i.e. it lacked a separate specific non-free use rationale for the list article), but a valid non-free use rationale for the list article can't really be written per WP:JUSTONE and it's highly likely the file's non-free use would be successfully challenged even if you did provide the missing non-free use rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Joseph Coats.png

Hi Folks!! I uploaded this image. Its Public Domain Mark 1.0 according to [2] but I couldn't find a licence for it. It seems to be wholly public domain. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The original is here (also on PMC here), which lists the author of the obituary as "W. T. G." - but that doesn't mean that person took that photograph/picture. Per Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom If the work was published before 30 August 1989 then copyright expires 70 years after that first publication. - which applies here unless the photograph can have its author ascertained. I believe this makes it commons-eligible per being PD in the UK, and it's PD in the US because it's UK copyright has expired - but don't quote me on that. I mainly figured I'd provide links to the original articles in the BMJ so you could attribute the image to those (and those seem to maybe be higher quality too). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Berchanhimez: Thanks for that and finding a nicer looking one. It looks much better, I'll use it. It looks awful dark in the article Joseph Coats, when your sitting in a dark room. If its in public domain, and I upload the BMJ image, what licence would I use? Currently the brown image at [3] doesn't have a licence tag. I was looking for a British public domain tag I put couldn't see one in the [4] public domain category. scope_creep^Talk 10:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It has been resolved. This can be closed. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I can always ask

Dr. Catherine Nakalembe, a winner of the Africa Food Prize (AFP) 2020 on BBC World- Focus on Africa.

I'd like to use this video as an EL in Catherine Nakalembe, but my guess is that I'm wrong I can't, because it's not posted by the BBC. So, can someone tell me I'm wrong, please? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Without some clear evidence this is freely licensed we cannot use the image. Because it is obviously a BBC production, that i actually watched the other day, they would have to freely license the image/video for us to be able to use it. Most news organisations do not do that. ww2censor (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Ww2censor Yeah, but "censor" is part of your username so of course you say that ;-) Anyway, that's what I thought, thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually Gråbergs Gråa Sång my user name has nothing to do with that thought you have. My interest lies in collecting items such as these especially Irish ones. ww2censor (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Image rights

Wikipedia has an article for Liz Whitney Tippett. When you do a Google search for the exact Wikipedia name or her best known name Liz Whitney, the Wikipedia article comes up on the Google page with a photo of her next to it that is not in the Wikipedia article. Can we use that same photo? Stretchrunner (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Stretchrunner Assuming you mean this image [5], google seems to have got it from a site called geni.com, which doesn't say anything about the image. So, insufficient data, but probably not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stretchrunner: The person is dead, so you can probably upload it, under the Fair Use doctrine. You specify in the File upload Wizard. You must be able to supply the source URL and the date of death. Select This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. and then select This is an historic portrait of a person no longer alive.. Fill everything in. Make sure the template is completed, with all fields. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Stretchrunner: However if a freely licensed image can be found you can't use a non-free one. This image appears to be an advertising image which has a copyright notice of 1930 (bottom right) so you will have to determine if the copyright was renewed or not. If not, that could be used. The image you refer to appear to be from 1937 but I can't find anything else about it. You should do some more investigation before just uploading a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

My thanks to you all. Greatly appreciate something clearly enunciated that helps those of us who have to "find their way" an such things at Wikipedia. I will copy this and put it in my Wiki "How/What to do" file. Again, thank you. Stretchrunner (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Cut image from Sky-map.org

Hello, I have cut an image from Sky-map.org (Wikisky) to use in a new article. I read: "SKY-MAP.ORG allows to use their processed images and cut out tools for non-commercial use with additional credits to WikiSky.org". I'm ready to upload the file but my question is, does this fit in the "free use" category, or non-free, "fair use"? Thanks! Assambrew (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid Wikipedia does not count an image restricted to non-commercial use as being free use. See WP:Image use policy#Free licenses. On the other hand a requirement to credit the creator is perfectly acceptable (and should be done anyway). Thincat (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Since there is the restriction to non-commercial use, I'm reluctant to try using the cut image. I'll try to find something free use. Assambrew (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48

Using non-free images for list article tables

For the list of Pomona College presidents, I'm thinking about adding photos, similar to the ones at the Washington College list or the U Michigan list. Some of the presidents, e.g. E. Wilson Lyon, have only a fair use portrait available, though. Could I write a non-free use rationale for including these images in the table? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair use requires you to discuss the picture, not merely illustrate the list. This would not be acceptable. Rmhermen (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb: Also see WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLE. ww2censor (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo

I would like to get permission to use one of the photos on the Soesterberg section. I am writing an article about Soesterberg for one of the Coast Guard Auxiliary newsletters and would like to use the photo title pilotless Soviet MiG-23 over Belgium. The pilots that shot the plane down were from Soesterberg. They went up to intercept the plane after it crossed the east/west border. When they approached the plane they saw that there was not pilot and the plane itself was in a flamed-out status. They requested permission to shoot the plane to keep it from coming down in a residential area. I can't find the photographer to ask permission. The letters under the photo are theaviationist.com.

Sandy DeLaughter

Exactly what image are you referring to? Provide a full url of the page the image is on, not just the url of the image itself, so we can review itww2censor (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

After peering around I think https://theaviationist.com/2012/10/03/mig23-belgium/ is being referred to which contains a photo attributed to "Rob Schleiffert/Wiki". This is on Commons at commons:File:F-15C 32nd TFS (18843926830).jpg where it is, in turn, attributed to https://www.flickr.com/photos/109661044@N07/18843926830 You do not need to ask permission: Rob Schleiffert has already given permission to use it provided people credit him and specify the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic licence as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ explains. ("CC BY-SA 2.0" in short). However, it would be nice to thank Rob on Flickr (but because I live in a Flickr-free world I don't know how to do that!). Thincat (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:An American Werewolf in London poster.jpg

Hi, I don't understand how this poster (and many many other movie posters) can be used as "fair use". The description tells that it can only be used "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration". However in the article An American Werewolf in London I don't see "critical commentary" that refers to the poster, just illustration in the infobox. (please, ping me on reply) --Kanzat (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Kanzat: it is generally accepted that under our non-free media policy one may use a non-free film poster but only as identification in the infobox of the article about that film. You may not use it elsewhere without critical commentary about the poster itself and complying with all 10 non-free policy criteria. ww2censor (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Are philippine bldg and sculpture 0hotos acceptable on wikipedia?

Hello. I was directed there through a suggested venue at my query and concern at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Wikimedia

Cullen328 said that both wikipedia and wikimedia commons do not tolerate copyright violation. Wikimedia commons' one golden rule for photos featuring bldgs and sculptures is that they should be under the freedom of panorama if the country has such rule on their copyright law. Most philippine bldgs and sculptures are not allowed there because theres no freedom of pano in the copyright law of the country.

My question is does wikipedia has similar rule for photos pf philippine bldgs and sculptures or not? Or does it allow photos pf philippine bldgs and sculptures? I can see various photos of philippine bldgs and sculptures with no logo and link to wikimedia commons having "do not move to wikimedia commons" notices. For resolution they are in full resolutions.

Cullen328 added that "A low resolution photo of a copyrighted sculpture may be permissible if it illustrates sourced critical commentary about that sculpture in an encyclopedia article." How about high resolution photos that i can see in some uploads of what i assume to be filipino wikipedians?

One perfect example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDSA_Shrine

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mrcl lxmna: According to the information at Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama, photos of architectural works in the Philippines would be acceptable on the English Wikipedia. In particular, there is the template {{FoP-USonly}}. For a photo of such an architectural work, my guess is that the photo itself (but not the photo's subject) would have to be licensed under a free content license or be out of copyright. At the same time, photos of copyrighted artistic works (such as sculptures) in the Philippines would have to be treated as non-free content. --Elegie (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)