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)

Images owned by the subject of my article

I have uploaded a couple of pictures that I want to use. How do I tag the picture when I got it directly from the subject (Abe Fogle) of my article? Thank you. Blairsmom (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blairsmom Wikipedia is very careful about copyright, and the pic from [1] is marked "Photo by Jim Trocchio", so the default assumption is that he is the copyright holder (he may have legally given it to someone else, I guess), and the one who must give the pic a WP-usable license. It's not at all sure this is something that he wants to do, but if so, try directing him to Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually Jim Trocchio gave Abe Fogle the picture and permission to use it. He is the band's photographer. I will see if he is able to complete the "release generator". Blairsmom (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Blairsmom. Unless Tocchio is also willing to give everyone in the world the same permission as he gave Fogle so that they can download the photo from Wikipedia at anytime they want and reuse it for pretty much any purpose they want (including to make money off of), you might want to advise him not to do so. Basically, Tocchio is going to need to give his WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT) in order for the files to be kept. Before he does that, you might want to suggest that he looks at c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:License revocation and c:Commons:Enforcing license terms. Sometimes copyright holders don't understand what it means to upload their creative work to Wikipedia until its too late. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Can I use a picture?

Good day, I am trying to use a picture for an article, however the city of Dubuque seems to not know how to help me and this is my first time. The person I was talking said, "We ask that you give photo credit to the City of Dubuque. I'm am not familiar with what makes a photo free license or public domain. However, you do have permission to use them as long as you credit the City properly." How would I go about getting the proper license for the picture. Also, I don't know if this matters but I was redirected here by the Treehouse. Marshmallo3535 (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Marshmallo3535. Crediting the city is no problem, but the wording of that email is way too vague. If it is a contemporary photo, it is almost certainly copyrighted, and the copyright holder must freely license it properly. If it is a historic photo, the copyright may have expired. Tell us more about the photo. Do you know when it was taken? Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

She sent me multiple images, sort of like a catalog, that I could pick through. The one I want to use (and why I contacted the City) is a map. As the project I am covering is new-ish I highly doubt this is over 70 years old. The only time stamp I have is when she sent me it at 09/28/2022 11:58AM. Marshmallo3535 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The map must be presumed copyrighted. Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Cullen328 (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Do I just send her that link saying all images on Wikipedia are 100%, etc. etc. or should I do something else?

Marshmallo3535 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Marshmallo3535: More information is needed about the provenance of the images you were sent in order to their copyright status to be assessed. Since none of us answering questions at WP:MCQ are professional WMF staff and probably none of us are professionally licensed copyright lawyers, most of the copyright assessments you get here are just educated guesses based upon whatever information is known; however, without knowing some basics, it's hard to even given you a general assessment. That is why, as Cullen328 stated above, common practice is to presume that an image is protected by copyright unless it can reasonably demonstrated that it's not; moreover, it's expected that person uploading a file to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons will exercise due dilligance when doing so and make every effort to demonstrate the uploaded file can be licensed as claimed. So, if you can find out who originally created the image (e.g. who drew the map) since the creator of an image is generally considered the copyright holder and when it was first published (or even whether it was ever published) since date of first publication is often the determining factor when assessing copyright, then that would be helpful. If the person you spoke to at the City of Dubuque can provide that information, then a general assessment can probably be made. If they can't and you otherwise can't find it on your own, then it's probably best to not try and upload the files to Wikipedia. Even if the best that can be assumed is that the map was created by an unknown person with an unknown publication date, it would likely still be considered protected under US copyright law until 120 years after the date of creation as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Non-free image and free image have the same name

Hello, I'm trying to add an image to the page Kraken Regiment, the problem is that "Kraken logo.png" links to two different images: one is this one (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kraken_logo.png?uselang=en) and the non-free one is this one (File:Kraken logo.png) from Kraken (roller coaster). How I can make the first one show up and not the other? LordLoko (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@LordLoko I've renamed the non-free file to file:Kraken roller coaster logo.png so you should find using file:Kraken logo.png in the article on the regiment should work fine now. Nthep (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks my man. Added the image. Cheers! LordLoko (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

A company logo: simple design rule?

Hello,

File:BroekToe productiehuis logo.png

(Broektoe logo)

I uploaded a Belgian company logo. (Company was closed in 2017)

As it's mainly only letters, I was thinking it's ok... Or not?! Thanks, YAOUMFA (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I had the Commons:Licensing "Simple Design" rule in mind here. YAOUMFA (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, it looks like Belgium/Netherlands has a relatively higher standard for simple logos to be considered copyright - certainly not Sweat of the Brow like in the UK (not has high as the US, but specifically iterates to unique character, the zipper in this logo not being as such)) So this would appear to be ok to tag as free. c:TOO is a good place to check. --Masem (t) 01:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Bots and composite images

I'm having trouble with File:Axiom Verge 2 parallel worlds.png, a composite image of two screenshots from a video game. The image itself is at a high resolution, but the two screenshots that make it up are only at around 240-360p. (I can't remember exactly, and regrettably I deleted them from my device after uploading.)

These images are necessary to illustrate one of the game's fundamental mechanics, and I believe fair use criteria are met because of the low individual resolutions described above. Unfortunately, bots can only see the image's master resolution, so they keep reducing it to a point where the screenshots within are barely legible. Can we resolve this in a way that keeps the image at a balanced resolution? I've considered reducing the master resolution to something like 512p, but bots wouldn't understand that anyway. Glades12 (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Add {{Non-free no reduce}} to the image and make sure in your rationale or someplace on the file page you explain your attempt to minimizing as much as possible. --Masem (t) 14:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Image possibly in the public domain

Is this image in the public domain? I'm specifically thinking about the before 1989 rule. 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 16:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally with a photo like this, being able to see the border and being able to see the back are the easiest ways to verify whether there ever was a copyright notice provided. Under US copyright law, works published prior to March 1, 1989 were required to have a copyright notice in order to be considered protected. If a notice was mistakenly left out, then a claim for copyright could subsequently be made at a later date within five years. The file you've linked to shows the border and the back, and it doesn't look like there's a visible copyright notice in either place. So, it would certainly be OK if first published before Janaury 1, 1978. It's the last part about subsequent registration, however, which is unclear. You could try checking something like cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB to see if a copyright for the photo was ever registered. "Action for Children's Television" gets several hits, but none of them seem to be for works created in 1987. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC to see if anyone else can find out anything further since that's most likely where the photo should be uploaded if it's c:Template:PD-US-1978-1989 . -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!! I'll make a post there :) 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^{(🕷) - (✉)} 07:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

File:1007wrdu.png

Any opinions on whether it would be OK to convert the licensing of File:1007wrdu.png from {{non-free logo}} to {{PD-logo}}. It's a former logo of the US radio station WRDU and the way it's currently being used fails WP:NFG and WP:NFC#cite_note-4. However, it's bascially nothing more than the station's call letters and slogan plus one other element which looks like a guitar pick. The guitar pick element looks simple enough, but it could also be just enough to push this logo above c:COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Certainly on the border. I would say it falls below the threshold of originality. The guitar pick is represented by a relatively simple shape with no elements of shading or other complexity. Whpq (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Whpq. It does seem close, but it's not too different from some of the examples given in c:COM:TOO United States; so, maybe it's OK as "PD-logo". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

File:RC Modeler 197311.jpg

File:RC Modeler 197311.jpg is currently being used in Mark Smith (R/C modeling pioneer) uncer a non-free license. The subject of the article may have died in 2011, but that's unsourced and so the article is still listed as BLP. I don't think the non-free use of this file could be justified if the subject is still living either per WP:FREER or item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI. It's possible,though, that this might be {{PD-US-no notice}}. Anyone have any ideas on how to try and check on that? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I was able to look at a scan of the November 1973 issue of R/C Modeler from which the image was taken. It does have the notice Contents copyright 1973 by R/C Modeler Corporation. All rights reserved. Reproductions in whole or part, without written permission of the publisher, is prohibited.. I was unable to reliably source that the subject is deceased, but it can be unreliably sourced. Whpq (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Whpq. Even if we were to assume that subject is deceased, I'm not sure this would meet item 9 of UUI and purpose for using the cover art seems to be more to show him holding a RC seagull than it's to identify him. The image is pretty poor if the main purpose is primary identification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The image in the magazine I saw was clearer and in colour. There are also other images in the article as well. One big problem with the image is that it includes some of the text of the article and is not just a photo. Whpq (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Porvoo Communion

Hello! I was just wondering what your reasons might haven been to remove the church logos and heraldry? I don't really understand why, so if you could explain what your reasons were, then that would be very helpfull. King of Arrogance2001 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi King of Arrogance2001. If you re-check the edit summary left by the WP:BOT that removed those files from Porvoo Communion, you find that it also included a link to WP:NFC#Implementation in addition to a link to this noticeboard. That particular bot has been tasked to do mainly two things with respect to non-free content: (1) lookk for non-free content that is being used outside of the article namespace (e.g. being used on userpages, drafts, templates) which isn't allowed per non-free content use criterion #9 and (2) look for non-free content being used in articles which doesn't have a separate specific non-free use rationale for all of its uses which isn't allowed per non-free content use criterion #10c. In this case, the bot removed the files for reason (2) because you or someone else added them to the "Provoo Communion" article withour adding a corresponding non-free use rationale explaining how the use is justified to each file's page. Often a way to resolve this type of issue is to simply add the missing rationale to a file's page and then re-add the file to the desired article. That will stop the bot from removing the file again, but just adding a missing rationale doesn't automatically make a particular non-free use policy compliant. There are actually ten non-free content use criteria that each use of non-free content is expected to satisfy and failing even one of the ten means the use is not going to be allowed. After looking at the way the files were being used in the "Porvoo Communion" article, I don't think you'll be able to establish a consensus for their use in the article. Non-free content is pretty much never allowed to be used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner and trying to use non-free content as sort of "quasi-icons" in lists embedded within articles is not allowed per non-free content use criterion #8, WP:NFLISTS and MOS:LOGO. Non-free logos do tend to be allowed when they are being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the organizations, companies, teams, etc. they represent, but using them in other articles or in other ways tends to be much harder to justify per relevant Wikipedia policy. The bot that removed the files, for reference, is incapable of assessing whether a use complies with WP:NFCC#8, but, once again, I doubt a consensus could be established in favor of such use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding logo for People’s Anti-Fascist Front

I'm added the logo of the People’s Anti-Fascist Front on Wikipedia and I added it as the logo of the group. Someone said it was not allowed to be used and it was removed. Then how do I add it when it is not allowed? It is from - https://trackingterrorism.org/group/peoples-anti-fascist-front-paff-jammu-and-kashmir/ Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Muhafiz-e-Pakistan. File:People’s Anti-Fascist Front.jpg was removed from People's Anti-Fascist Front by a WP:BOT because the bot for non-free content use criterion #10c reasons because the bot was unable to find a non-free use rationale for that specific use on the file's page. The file is still lacking a non-free use rationale for any Wikipedia article which means it is eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F6. It also is currently not being used in any articles which means it's eligible for speedy deletion per WP:F5. If you think that file's non-free use in the "PAFF" article satisfies all ten of the criteria listed here, then you should add a non-free use rationale to the file's page explaining why. There are few ways this can be done, but the easist is perhaps to use Template:Non-free use rationale logo to the file's page. The template's documentation explains how to use it and fill in its parameter. Finally, you probably should provide a little more information about File:Mardan city.jpg which is another file you uploaded. Assuming that you did take this photo and since there seems to be freedom of panorama for such structures or artwork in Pakistan per c:COM:FOP Pakistan, you should provided as much information about the photo as part of the file's description. You can use Template:Information to do this if you want. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly But how do most people use logos of militant groups without non-free use rationale? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

​ All non-free content is required to have two things as explained in WP:NFC#Implementation: (1) a file copyright license and (2) a seperate and specific non-free use rationale for each use. Non-free files lacking either of those things may be tagged for speedily deletion per WP:F4 or WP:F6, or removed from the article where they're being used per WP:NFCCE. You uploaded File:People's Anti-Fascist Front.jpg as non-free content but didn't provide a non-free use rationale for the way you intended to use the file. In order to stop the bot from removing the file and to avoid the file being deleted per WP:F6, you will need to add the required rationale to the file's page. You can do this a couple of ways, but the easiest way is probably to use Template:Non-free use rationale logo. Go to the file's page and click "Edit" then add the template's syntax near the top of the editing window above the copyright license template's syntax. Fill in all of the relevant parameters as best as you can. The logo had to come some where so you should add a link to the website where you found the logo to the |source= parameter. After you do this, re-add the file to the article listed in |article= parameter of the rationale. If you do this, the bot should stop removing the files.

As for your question But how do most people use logos of militant groups without non-free use rationale?, the only thing I can say is such non-free use isn't compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and not permitted. It's also quite possible that there are differences in how the files are licensed and how they're being used as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE. Not all logo files you see used on Wikipedia are licensed as non-free content and thus their uses aren't subject to non-free content use policy. If the logo has been released under an acceptable free license by its copyright holder or is considered to be within the public domain for some reason (for example, it's too simple to ever be eligible for copyright protection or it's now too old to be still eligible for copyright protection), then it's not subject to the same restrictions as non-free content use. Freely licensed content and public domain content still do, however, need information about their provenance provided on their file pages so that their copyright licensing can be assessed, but they are not required to have a non-free use rationale.

As for the other files you've uploaded as your "own work", those files should really be moved to Wikipedia Commons since they aren't non-free content and there's no need for them to be local files (i.e. for use on English Wikipedia only); so, moving them to Commons will make them much easier for others to use. Before they can be moved, however, more information about the provenance of each file needs to be added to its page. Once again, the easiest way to do this is probably to use template like Template:Information; just add the template's syntax to each file's page and then fill in the parameters. It's important though to make sure that all the files you've uploaded are you "own work" and not things created by others that you might've found someowhere online. Only copyright holders can release their content as "own work" under a free license and content found online is not automatically free from copyright protection as explained here. For reference, "own work" is defined in a special way when it comes to copyright as explained here and you can only claim original content that you yourself create as your "own work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Thanks and I have one more question, can I just create my own replica of the file and would that count as copyright and also be my "own work"? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Dominic Pezzola

This newspaper article has a black and white photo of Pezzola using a police shield to break a window at the US Capitol on January 6, 2022. The photo credit says "court paperwork". Since the court in question is a US Federal court, is it safe to conclude that this photo is in the public domain? Cullen328 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The photo may have been provided to the court by an amateur photographer who didn't necessarily want to be credited for her or his work. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It also seems that lots of people were taking photos on that day and then posting them on social media or other websites. I believe some of these were eventually used by law enfrocement as evidence in court cases. Maybe try a Google reverse image search or TinEye to see whether it might have been posted online before and given better attribution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Not a lawyer, but from my experience, I wouldn't assume PD. The opposite really. Copyright resides with the creator of the work. Several layers here: This is a still from a cellphone video owned by a private individual, so they own the original work, which is also probably in color. The government//law enforcement probably never requested a transfer of copyright or even a use license since it doesn't require that for its justice purposes. If this were a still from a surveillance camera owned by the government (like from an overhead angle) then I would lean yes, PD. You could also, in theory, create an anthology of images or a picture of a printout of the filing, but this is all gray area stuff. Interesting puzzle tho! Hard to get the best pics of these events.... — LumonRedacts 04:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

DATABASE OF AUTHORS AND PUBLISHERS WHO APPROVED QUOTES ON WIKIPEDIA?

Hello, is there currently a database of authors and publishers who approve quotes on Wikipedia? If not, can it be created?

== AUTHOR PERMISSION to use content on wikipedia ==

adamhochschild AT earthlink dot net wrote:

If the excerpt is a fairly short one, not more than a paragraph or two, and is properly credited to my book, it’s fine with me if you quote it on Wikipedia.

All the best, Adam Hochschild

May1787 (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The answer to your question would be no. Editors include quotes if they want to. Author permission is not sought or granted, and the quote will be used under fair use. |Sometimes use is excessive, inappropriate and not fair. There will not be a database of these quotes. Wikiquote is a more more organised collection. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Author and publishers permission to use copyrighted data

Author or publisher	Email address	Email content	Permission date
Adam Hochschild	adamhochschild AT earthlink dot net	If the excerpt is a fairly short one, not more than a paragraph or two, and is properly credited to my book, it’s fine with me if you quote it on Wikipedia. All the best, Adam Hochschild	October 7 2022
Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example

May1787 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent Logic with use of copyrighted photos

If i were to use this image in any other article apart from "Tikka Khan", it'd be taken down because the Image is described as used solely to illustrate a Person since the copyright is held by the person who created the Image. That example is exactly what happened to me. But then I see this image used in this article (in the atrocities section) even though its non free use just like the Tikka Khan one. Why is this one being used in multiple articles so freely? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@PreserveOurHistory the image File:Dead bodies of Bengali intellectuals, 14 December 1971.jpg is used in multiple articles because the people who wanted to use it have written a separate WP:NFUR case for each use. The same applies to any other non-free file, you must write a separate rationale for each use. So if you want to use File:General.TikkaKhan.jpg in any other article, you need to write a (policy compliant) rationale and add that to the file page. Nthep (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Except, however, the rationale is exactly the same on each use, which is not really acceptable. The rationale needs to be tuned to each use, and (without understanding any further significant of the image) just a number of dead bodies, doesn't seem to require the need to be used multiple times. Masem (t) 12:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi PreserveOurHistory. Did someone tell you it'd be taken down because the Image is described as used solely to illustrate a Person since the copyright is held by the person who created the Image. because that doesn't sound correct at all; in fact, it sounds like a mixing together of two different things. While it's true that the person who takes a photo (not the subject of a photo) is generally considered the copyright holder of said photo, there's nothing in Wikipedia'a image use policy that states such a photo can only be used in a Wikipedia article about the photographer (if that's what you mean). If you want to upload a photo taken by someone else that is still considered to be protected by copyright, then Wikipedia is going to need some way to verify that the copyright holder has given their WP:CONSENT for the photo to be uploaded. Without the copyright holder's consent, Wikipedia can't accept the photo under a free license.

Now, in certain cases, Wikipedia allows copyrighted content like photos, logos and other media to uploaded without the copyright holder's consent as long the way the content is being used is in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The problem you were having with File:Lt Gen Gul Hassan Khan.jpg was that it was originally uploaded as non-free content and you were trying to use it in Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army#Commanders-in-Chief, Pakistan Army (1947–1972) without adding a corresponding non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page as required by non-free content use criterion #10c. That is why the bot removed the file and same thing applies to all non-free content regardless of how it's used as Nthep pointed out above. Now, what the bot doesn't and can't assess is whether the non-free use would be policy-compliant if the file in question is provided with a non-free use rationale. In this case, the answer is it would not because non-free content is pretty much never allowed to illustrate individual entries in tables or lists (embedded lists included) per WP:NFTABLES and WP:NFLISTS.

A non-free photo a deceased individual like Gul Hassan Khan is typically allowed for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the individual as long as it meets WP:FREER, but is almost never allowed to be used in other types of article or other types of ways unless there's a really good policy-based reason for doing so. The first use in the article about the person is already considered an exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files which means each additional non-free use after that becomes increasing more of an exception and increasing harder to justify. There's nothing inconsistent with this because this has how relevant policy has been applied since the non-free content policy was established so many years ago. The bot removed the file because you failed to provide a non-free use rationale for the use on the file's page, but providing a rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the ten non-free content use criteria that need to be met and a non free use needs to satisfy all ten criteria for the use to be considered policy compliant.

I saw that you changed the photo's licensing to {{PD-Pakistan}} and the photo may indeed be within the public domain under Pakistani copyright law; however, the photo also needs to be within the public domain under US copyright law because that's where Wikipedia's servers are located. Even if the photo is PD in Pakistan, it will still need to be treated as non-free content if it's not PD in the United States. So, for now, I've re-added a non-free license to the file's page and removed it from "Commander-in-Chief" article so that its copyright can be further discussed either here or at WP:FFD. If it turns out that the photo is both PD in Pakistan and the US, then it should be moved to Commons and you can use it pretty much any way you want as long as you do so in accordance with Wikipedia's more general image use policy. If, on the other hand, the photo is still considered to be protect by copyright under US copyright law, it will need to be treated as non-free content for use on English Wikipedia. The first thing that is needed to help determine the photo's copyright status is more information about its en:provenance. The Flickr source provided for the photo does us no good because (1) the Flickr account holder almost certainly didn't take the photo themselves so they can't claim they own the copyright over it, and (2) the Flickr page provides no real information as to when the photo was first published and who it was taken by. If you can find such information, the please post it here. If neither you nor anyone else is able to find such information, then the best that can be done is for Wikipedia to continue to treat the photo as non-free content. Even as non-free content, though, the photo still has issues with non-free content use criterion #4 (WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criteria) because (once again) the Flickr account holder is almost certainly not the original copyright holder even though they are claiming they are and more needs to be know about the provenance of photo for it to even be used as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

In the U.S., those photos would be protected for 95 years from publication. If it was an official photo of the government, and the government has said that their expirations apply worldwide, it would be OK -- that is basically an author declaring it public domain. We have gotten such a statement from the UK, Canada, and Australia, and maybe one or two others, but not Pakistan as far as I know. There is some argument that we should assume such a status for government works, but I don't think there is general consensus on that. And if it was a snapshot taken by someone else, and published privately, then it's not a government work (even if said person was a soldier). Copyright can last a ridiculously long time (it's often the life of the author and 70 more years), which means it's hard to illustrate many 20th century subjects, outside of using fair use. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

PD-because

File:Princess Seble Desta holding flowers with Emperor Haile Selassie, Prince Sahle, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and First Lady Mamie Eisenhower.jpeg was unploaded under a {{PD-because}} license with the reason given being "the copyright has expired", but there's nothing provided to verify this claim. The file's description states it's a "AP wire photo" which would seem to mean the file can't be one of the various {{PD-USGov}} licenses. It could be {{PD-US-not renewed}} given that it is supposed to have been taken in 1954, but not sure that can automatically be assumed and not quite sure how to check that. Regardless, an image like this probably should be licensed as "PD-because" since that's basically like saying "PD because I want it to be PD" in my opinion. The is a number (B41745STF) in the photo's caption that might be some sort of identification number, but not sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Lawrence photograph collection National Library of Ireland

I would like to use some photographs from the Lawrence photograph collection of the National Library of Ireland. To me these appear to be out of copyright due to their age. This example [2] has the information: "French, Robert, 1841-1917 photographer". The subject matter of interest is such that the photograph dates, at the very latest, before World War 2 (Chuck Meide & Kathryn Sikes (2011) The Achill Yawl: vernacular boats in historical context on Achill Island, Ireland, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 40:2, 235-255, DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2010.00297.x) and probably substantially before that.

However, the National Library of Ireland seem to claim copyright. Are they correct or could this be uploaded to commons? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Ireland's basic copyright is PMA+70 so the written or photographic work of anyone from Ireland who died before 1 January 1952 will be PD there. US copyright status which is necessary to determine to upload to Commons depends on first publication and whether the publication was in line with US copyright requirements. There are too many variables at the moment to give you a more definite answer. The important ones being whether it has ever been published in the US and if so when, and how. Nthep (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - so if I understand that correctly, I could upload the sample picture, or even a cropped version, to a Wikipedia article. (i.e. bypassing commons.) Is it just me, or do other editors find it irritating when libraries and museums imply that copyright exists when in fact it doesn't? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You could upload here but you'd need to add a fair use rationale as the image hasn't been shown to be PD/out of copyright in the US and any image on Wikipedia needs to abide by US copyright law too. Nthep (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi ThoughtIdRetired. While it's possible to upload content still protected by copyright under US copyright locally to Wikipedia as non-free use as Nthep mentions, this type of use isn't automatic and each use of the content needs to satisfy all ten Wikipedia non-free content use criteria. Since Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been purposely set up to be more restrictive that the US copyright concept of fair use as explained here, it can be hard sometimes to meet all ten criteria or establish a consensus for such a thing. The photograph of the boat you linked to above, for example, could most likely be uploaded and used if you were creating a stand-alone article about that particular photo, but it might be harder to justify if you wanted to use the photo in other articles or in other ways because it generally becomes much harder for such uses to meet WP:NFC#CS and WP:FREER. Maybe if you can clarify in which article you want to use these images and how you want to use them, it would be easier to give you a rough assessment as to whether their use would be OK as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The usage I had in mind was in the article Achill Island - adding a section about the Achill Yawl (the boat in the photo). My editing interests include maritime history – particularly traditional small craft. (The story of this boat coincides with another interest, the Highland Potato Famine, which is closely related to the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, who were ideologically opposed to the Currach.) The article content would be on the numbers of these boats that existed, their different construction from boats with a similar use in Ulster, nature of use, etc. At the end of the 19th century, Achill Yawls were integral to life in this part of Ireland. The nature of the entry would be similar to Deal, Kent#Maritime_history – a section in an article on a place where that maritime history is a big part of the place's history. Clearly it would have to be proportionate to the rest of the article, so not too long. I hope this answers your question.

I suppose this might be a frequent question, but if the picture is out of copyright in Ireland, who is going to complain about use of the picture in the US? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your last question, see c:COM:PCP as well as WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED and WP:NEVERSUE. For the rest of your post, if the boat itself is notable for a stand-alone article about it, then a non-free photo of it might be allowed assuming that there are no free equivalent photos of the boat and the boat no longer exists. Otherwise, you may have to find sourced critical commentary specific to this particular photo itself and add that to the relevant section. If there’s just general content about the boat and perhaps how it was used that can reasonably understood by the reader without seeing the photo, then it may be hard to establish a consensus in favor of the photo’s non-free use per WP:DECORATIVE. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

References

AMNH Digital Repository Copyright

I created the Cretodromia article and would like to include a diagram used in the referenced study. The contents of the study are considered "freely accessible" by the American Natural History Museum's digital research library, but I am unsure if this means the diagram is okay to upload as an image. Here is a link to the study's page in the library: [3]https://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/1583 Yupwewin (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Freely accessible is not the same as freely licensed. The front page of the study states it us copyrighted, and I saw no indication any part if the study is under a free license. Whpq (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

How much similarity before posting at WP:CPN?

Hi all. I regularly come across articles with large amounts of close paraphrasing or mirroring of a single source, and sometimes lots of copy-paste sentences or paragraphs. While I've tagged some newly created pages at WP:NPP, I've never filed a WP:CPN notice for longer lasting or more complicated issues (I usually just sigh, ignore the mess and move on). According to Earwig's Copyvio Detector, the article David Crenshaw Barrow Jr. has a 74.8% similarity with the corresponding article in the New Georgia Encyclopedia, with many sentences repeated verbatim. Is there an approximate percentage threshold for how much similarity is acceptable before being actionable? Should this be blanked and referred to Wikipedia:Copyright problems? I don't care enough about the subject to rewrite it at this time. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)