Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/May

Voter Pamphlet Images

Are photo images published in official government voters pamphlets Public Domain?--Orygun (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Orygun. There are lots of variables to consider here so it's pretty much impossible to give you one answer that would apply to all cases. First of all, copyright laws can and often do vary quite a bit from country to country or from jurisdiction to jurisdiction; so, where the pamphlet has been first published would play a large part in assessing whether it is eligible for copyright protection. Secondly, it would depend on the meeting of "official government". In some countries, like the United States, works 100% created by employees of the the federal (national) government as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain; in other words, such works are not considered to be eligible for copyright protection. However, this only applied to the US federal government, and works created by official employees of state, county, city or other local governments aren't covered and may be eligible for copyright protection depending on the copyright laws of the state, county, city, etc. Lastly, the complexity and provenance of all of the individual elements of the pamphlet could also play a part in determining whether it's within the public domain. If the pamphlet was simply nothing more than simple words or phrases printed on nondescript paper, then it's possible that it would be too simple to be considered eligible for copyright protection (once again this varies from country to country). At the same time, if the pamphlet was a combination of more complex elements (e.g. photos), then the copyright status of these complex elements could affect the copyright status of the pamphlet. For example, sometimes US government official websites use photos and other content originally generated by someone else; in such cases, the copyright holder of such "borrowed" content is not the US government but rather the original creator of the content and thus it wouldn't automatically be considered to be within the public domain. It would tend to be treated as a WP:Derivative work for Wikipedia's purposes and the copyright status of each element would need to be considered. The age of the pamphlet and the individual photos could also be relevant to whether anything is copyrighted. A photo might no longer be eligible for copyright protection if it was first published prior to a certain date, but once again this tends to vary from country to country. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Trying to upload photos with permission from the authors of scientific articles

Hi,

I am working on the Wikipedia page for Isaria cicadae, and I have found some great pictures I would like to include on the page. I reached out to the authors of the articles in which I found the photos, and they granted me permission to use them. How should I go about trying to upload them?

Thanks so much!

PortabElla332 (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

We can't take your word for it that they have agreed to donate these pictures, even if they themselves created them (as opposed to having a grad student do it or something). That donation can only be done by the copyright holders. Here's a link to our guidance on this: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Many scientific journals are open access and publish papers under compatible free licenses. That may also be a possible source for free images if permission cannot be verified. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I completely understand. I reached out again and asked if they would upload the photos themselves, but I do have email proof of them granting permission if that helps! PortabElla332 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The email with permission needs to go directly from the copyright holder to VRT. I don't think they will accept an email forwarded from you due to the possibility of forged proof (note, I am not accusing you of this, just explaining why). -- Whpq (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you so much! PortabElla332 (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Uploading a non-free image

I'm writing as a representative of Spoon River College in Canton, Illinois.

I've been attempting to update an outdated logo for the Spoon River College Wikipedia page and having difficulty, since the image is non-copyright-free.

In attempting to use the "Upload a non-free file" function, I get a message saying that our account has not become confirmed yet. (I've been using our college Wikipedia account.)

How do I go about updating this image?

Thanks,

Mitch Williams
Spoon River College SpoonRiverCollege (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Accounts are for individuals and not organizations. You will need to register your own account. Whpq (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Once you do that, you can go to WP:Files for upload, and a volunteer will upload the file for you. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

A book cover from 1890

The question was raised at WP:Featured article candidates/Mars in fiction/archive1 whether File:A_Plunge_into_Space,_cover_image.jpg could get a more specific tag than the current {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}. It's an 1890 book cover for Robert Cromie's A Plunge into Space. Since it's from 1890 and was according to the British Library published that year in the US I assume that it qualifies for {{PD-US-expired}}, but it was also published in the UK in the same year by Frederick Warne & Co. according to the same source (and the cover itself bears the text "London & New York", "Frederick Warne & Co.", "1890", and "All rights reserved", so I see no reason to doubt it). The British Library does say that it is public domain, and I suppose they should know. I haven't been able to figure out who created the cover image—there doesn't seem to be any information about this in the scanned pages of the book itself. The only person credited is Cromie who authored the text of the book (and since he died in 1907 the book itself is in the public domain in the UK and could be tagged {{PD-old-100}}), but it seems unlikely that he would also be the author of the cover image.

Would it be safe to tag the image {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}? Or should it be tagged some other way? I freely admit that copyright is not remotely my area of expertise, so I might be way off here. TompaDompa (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa I don't see any problem with {{PD-US-expired}} and {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Nthep (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

With publication in the US, I don't think the UK copyright tag is necessary. -- Whpq (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Zillions of Games

This article contains a sample code excerpt, allegedly non-free and copyrighted by the developer of Zillions of Games. Aside from the manner in which the code excerpt is cited, there is also a fair use disclaimer that is odd to see in a Wikipedia article. But most importantly, while this use of a non-free work may comply with U.S. law, I am concerned that it likely fails our WP:NFCC#1 — there is probably an open-licensed sample of Zillions code available somewhere, as with most programming languages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Freely licensed code could be written even if there isn't any right now so it is replaceable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of copyright status, it also seems as if the adding such code runs afoul of WP:NOTMANUAL and possibly WP:OR (if it's one person's user-generated code sample). Masem is pretty familiar with video game articles. Perhaps they have an opinion on this? FWIW, that text appears to have been WP:BOLDly added way back in December 2006, but never seems to have been discussed over the years. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like that was something added when it was unclear whether something like that would be acceptable or not. I've removed it; it's "howto" type stuff anyway and there's no need to use a large chunk of nonfree material for that. If someone really thinks the article should include a code sample, they can write a freely licensed one themself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Images from the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek

Could anyone please tell me if I can use the following images I've uploaded on Commons? Verdross 1933, Verdross 1950. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666 the earlier photo is out of copyright in it's country of origin, Austria. But whether it is out of copyright in the US (necessary for hosting on Commons) needs more information i.e. when and where was it first published - don't assume that just because it was created in 1933, it was also published then.

The later image is less likely to be public domain. Austrian law on anonymous photos is dependent on publication date, so can't be sure at this stage whether this photo is PD in Austria, let alone the US.

If you can find out more, then we can be more specific. Nthep (talk) 08:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I couldn't find anything useful apart from the information that the first photo was made by Max Fenichel (1885-1942) and that the second one belongs to the Digital Collection "USIS - United States Information Service". I've just sent an e-mail to the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek asking for their help. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately they weren't able to provide the information I asked for and linked to the following page [1] mentioning that the Austrian National Library asserts no own proprietary exploitation rights ... it explicitly consents to the subsequent use of this content in the available web resolution ... any existing third-party rights to the content have to be clarified individually by the user before any subsequent use - I don't know if this is helpful. It's a shame though, because the two images would have been quite instructive in the context of Alfred Verdross (one section is about his relationship with Nazism, and the 1933 image looks suggestive in this regard). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Have you tried image searches through your preferred search engine to see if those throw up earlier uses of either image? Nthep (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately nothing comes up, apart from kulturpool.at, which is an Austrian portal for art, culture and education that publishes images from the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, so for instance one can find this [2] and this [3]. Is this in any way helpful? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Not really. However I did notice that there is commons:Category:Photographs by Max Fenichel where all the images seem to ignore the requirement to have a US copyright tag. Nthep (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes... unfortunately there's not Verdross amongst them. However, if I'm not wrong I've found a source of images of Verdross almost as interesting as Fenichel's. What about the following ones? 1927, 1929, 1931, 1935? Aren't they copyright-free? If they are, I'll go for 1935! Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Note that the author of the 1935 photo, Mathieu (or Mathias) Pieters from The Hague, died in 1950 [4]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a better sourced photo as we know the publication and date. It's PD in France since 2021. You need to see if it was ever published in the US or if the whole book was published in the US. Nthep (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The book was published in Paris [5] and I'm sure it has never been published in the US. The volumes from 1968 onwards are accessible via Brill under subscription [6] but the older volumes have been made freely available to the public by the French National Library. More information are here [7] and here [8]. This might be relevant:

Since 1923 the top names in international law have taught at the Hague Academy of International Law. All the volumes of the Collected Courses which have been published since 1923 are available, as, since the very first volume, they are reprinted regularly in their original format. Since 2008, certain courses have been the subject of a pocketbook edition. In addition, the total collection now exists in electronic form. All works already published have been put “on line” and can be consulted under one of the proposed subscription methods, which offer a range of tariffs and possibilities

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping to hear that there had been publication in the US, but never mind. So with no US publication, it's not going to be PD in the US until 95 years after publication i.e. 1 January 2036. As you seem to be drawing a blank in finding pictures of Vendross that are PD in the US, it's time to go for the local option. Upload the image of your choice here to Wikipedia under the non free content criteria. Nthep (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

That's great! I was vaguely aware but had forgotten about that possibility. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, @Nthep, but I'm struggling to understand how this works. If I'm not wrong, the only available option in terms of fair use rationale is "This is a historical portrait of a person no longer alive". However, I can't say that the image "will be used as the primary means of visual identification of that person in the article about them". In fact, the primary means of identification will remain the image currently included in the article Alfred Verdross. Actually the point of the 1935 photo, which makes it invaluable, is that Verdross at the time looked very much like Hitler - same mustache, similar hair [9] - which is interesting because, as explained in the article, at the time (and especially after 1938) he was struggling to adapt to the rising Nazism. In 1950 he looked quite different [10]. But it would be a bit unfair/POV to use the 1935 photo to identify the man - the 1927 photo, which is PD, seems more appropriate. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

ah. I hadn't looked at the article on Vendross to see that there is already a PD image of him. In that case non-free isn't an option. Nthep (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

final question. If I write to the Academy of The Hague and ask for their permission, would it be enough? What should I ask them to provide? Just an email saying "OK" or something more formal? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the photographers are dead, tracing the copyright holder might be challenging. Assuming that somehow, the Academy are now the US copyright holder then see WP:CONSENT. Nthep (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Photograph of Archibald Joyce in the Birmingham Post, 1963

Would it be alright to upload this picture of Joyce from his obituary? It is the only confirmed image of the composer I could find, free or unfree. https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/784860060/ Physeters^✉ 07:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Physeters. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy does, in principle, allow non-free images of deceased persons to be uploaded and used per item #10 of WP:NFCI, but each use of the image will still need to satisfy all ten of the non-free content use criteria listed at WP:NFCCP. When it comes to non-free images, the criteria that often prove the most difficult to meet in my opinion are WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8.

First, NFCC#1 has do with the availability of a free equivalent image that can either be found or created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free. While it's true that you can't take a new photo per se of some who is deceased, being deceased doesn't automatically mean that an existing image that has already been released under an acceptable free license or one in which the copyright holder agrees to make newly available under an acceptable free image can neither be found nor created. In pretty much all cases Wikipedia is going to prefer a free image to a non-free one. This doesn't mean that a non-free image can't be used, but it does mean some kind of reasonable effort should be made to try and find one. Given that Joyce was born in 1873 and that he's supposed to have begun his professional career in the 1890s, it seems there could possibly be an image of him first published prior to January 1, 1928, that has a good chance of already being within the public domain under US copyright law. Similarly, given that Joyce died in 1963, any image taken of him and first published on or after January 1, 1928, could also be within the public domain under US copyright if its copyright wasn't renewed prior to January 1, 1963. I can't see the image you're referring to above because I'm unable to access that link, but if it was first published before 1963, then there's a good chance that it could be within the public domain. Such a thing could arguments against allowing a non-free image to be used per WP:FREER.

Next, NFCC#2 becomes a problems when the image is attributed to a commercial news or photo agency like the Associated Press, Getty Images or a similar company. In such cases, such images are pretty much never allowed per item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI and WP:F7 unless the image (not the subject of the image, but that actual image itself) is the subject of sourced critical commentary. Of course, the possibility of copy fraud needs to be considered, but generally images considered whose provenance clearly shows they belong to a commercial news/image agency tend to be really hard to justify as non-free content.

Finally, NFCC#8 becomes a problem when the image is intended to be used a manner other than for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the person themselves. For example, a non-free image of Joyce would most like be OK per NFCC#8 in the stand-alone Wikipedia article written about him if the image was used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox, but it could possibly be much harder to justify if used in other articles or other ways even if they mention Joyce and have content related to him. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! The picture shows Joyce at quite an advanced age, so it almost certainly was published after 1928. Physeters^✉ 11:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Physeters: In that case it was almost certainly first published prior to his death and most likely even before it appeared in that obituary. Does the paper attribute the photo to any one either in the form of a caption or in the obituary itself? Assuming you can download the photo to your computer, you might be able to find out more about its provenance by doing a reverse image search on Google images or using something like TinEye. If you search Google images for Archibald Joyce, you also find things like this and this. Are those the same Archibad Joyce? If they are, then there might be more images of him floating around somewhere as well, which again means a non-free might not be necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The only text accompanying the picture in the paper is the label Mr Archibald Joyce and the obituary itself. While I can't reverse image search right now, the only other place I could find the image yesterday was on his memorial page on Find a Grave (along with the second image you linked). I am aware of both photographs you have provided, and they do both claim to be the same Archibald Joyce, however their source is unclear. The first image is probably not Joyce, as he was not a singer, and since he usually performed as a conductor, he would have no need for a microphone. The second image could actually be him, and would do better than the image in the newspaper, but it's provenance is unclear. The first use of it I could find on the internet is in an advertisement of a Russian performance of one of his songs dating to 2013. The page doesn't label the image or provide its source, so the link to Joyce is inferred. The person in this image looks similar to the one in the newspaper, but considering that the scan of the newspaper isn't that great, it is hard to be 100% sure. Physeters^✉ 12:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, on a previous point, the image would only be used for the Archibald Joyce article and no where else Physeters^✉ 12:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I've now used TinEye on the three images, but unfortunately its results were inconclusive. It could not find the photo from the newspaper, it sourced the image of the man with a microphone to this page from 2012 with a list of Joyce's compositions that does not give attribution for the image https://classic-online.ru/ru/composer/Joyce/7965, and it sourced the third image to a biography of Joyce from 2013 which also does not source the image and appears to just be a copy of the Wikipedia page at the time of publishing. https://web.archive.org/web/20140127024810/http://www.tribejoyce.com/archibald-joyce-1873-1963/ Physeters^✉ 18:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

You can probably upload and use the obituary image under {{Non-free biog pic}} for the copyright license and use {{Non-free use rationale biog}} for the non-free use rationale for a single use in the main infobox of Archibald Joyce. Just fill in the non-free rationale template with what as much information you're aboe to find out about photo's provenance. If someone different comes along and challenges the rationale at some later date, then perhaps further discussion will be needed to address their concerns. The best you can do is make a "reasonable effort" to find a free equivalent image to use instead of a non-free one. What constitutes a "reasonable effort" probably depends on who you ask, but it's probably something more than a five-minute Google search for "free images of Archibald Joyce", which doesn't seem to be the extent of your efforts. The important point (I guess) is just to remember that non-free images of deceased persons aren't automatically OK just because someone is dead. Finally, when uploading the image, you may only be given the choosing certain types of copyright licenses and non-free use rationales. That's OK, and you can always changes things once the file has been uploaded simply by editing the file's page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, here is a link to the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archibald_Joyce_(British_Composer)_obituary_portrait.jpg plesae let me know if I filled it all out correctly or if I should upload the image at an even lower resolution. Thank you for all of your help in explaining this to me! Physeters^✉ 03:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Of possible interest, I just discovered while adding the image to the article that someone attempted to add the image of the conductor to the article in 2021, but it was deleted on Commons for "Missing essential information such as license, permission or source (F5)". Physeters^✉ 03:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Unlike English Wikipedia and some of the other language Wikipedias, Commons doesn't accept any type of non-free content per c:COM:FAIR. So, content uploaded to Commons need to be either clearly be within the public domain or released under an acceptable free license in both the United States (where the Commons servers are located) and the country of first publication. Commons tends to delete files per c:COM:PCP whenever there's any significant doubt regarding the provenance and licensing of files uploaded to it. As for the file you uploaded, it seems OK to me. You've actually provided more information and put more thought into the non-free use rationale than most uploader's do. Of course, there are no guarantees, but at first glance it seems OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Great! Thanks again for all the help! Physeters^✉ 04:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Government works of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian SSRs

For example, File:Flag of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (1953–1990).svg. These works are always being tagged under the copyright laws of modern Baltic states regimes as their government work. Which is hard to believe, because of State continuity of the Baltic states. They don't view Soviet Republics as predecessors to them, thus the tags are incorrect and their copyright status is unclear. ibicdlcod (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a wider question than applicability to the English WP. You're better asking at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Nthep (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Science

Can you please upload 20230505_225507.jpg image of May 2023 lunar eclipse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachuri Bhanu Prakash Datta (talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rachuri Bhanu Prakash Datta sorry I don't understand what you are asking. Nthep (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

File:0x10c_logo.png is probably in the Public Domain

The tag on this file's page says that it's protected by copyright but I think that it's in the Public Domain. After reading commons:COM:TOO Sweden (the country the logo originated from) and commons:COM:TOO US , I'm pretty sure the logo does not meet the threshold of originality in both countries. Is it okay if I change the tag to Template:pd-textlogo ? Zbelios (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Would this image be acceptable?

I helped out on an article on Alexander Duncan. The image of him is here: https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/808053466/?terms=%22alex%20duncan%22%20runner%201908&match=1

It's from 1934 in England. It may be the only publicly available photo we have of this person and would only be used for his profile photo. Would it be acceptable?

Thanks KatoKungLee (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@KatoKungLee Since he is dead, I see no reason you can't upload it on WP as fair use/dead person, chose "Upload a non-free file" at WP:FUW. According to Commons public domain UK is after maker's life + 70 years, so unless you actually know that the photographer died in the early 50s, you can't put it on Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

It does look like it could be published anonymously, which would have made its UK copyright expire in 2004, but unfortunately the URAA implies that its US copyright should still last until 2029. Felix QW (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair use for scanned images in book

Would it be okay to scan and upload one or two images in a book published in the 20th century, about Roman jewelry c. 100 AD to the Roman jewelry article? It is difficult to find those images elsewhere, as they show the use of small screws in Roman jewlery c. 100 AD. Would this constitute Fair Use? Arkenstrone (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Arkenstrone: Probably not, because if these items exist in a museum or private collection, it is possible for someone to obtain a photo and release it under a free licence we accept. In that case it would fail the first of 10 criteria of our strict non-free content criteria which is stricter than fair use. If the items in the photos do not exist then there is a possibility of using them but the article you mention already has several freely licenced images so most likely not. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course, if "in the 20th century" would mean before 1928, then it would be public domain in the US since its copyright has expired. If it was published in the US and later it may depend on copyright formalities not having been observed. So in either case it would help to know more details. Felix QW (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That's very helpful. Thanks. Arkenstrone (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Replaceable non-free use?

File:Mezaenaset's household Kemetic Shrine.jpg and File:Mezaenaset's Senut Kemetic Shrine.jpg seems like replaceable non-free use per WP:FREER since a freely licensed photo of similar items should be reasonable to expect. The question, though, is whether the photographed themselves might be eligible for copyright protection in their own right. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I suppose this would depend on the extent to which these are mere copies of ancient originals rather than new realisations merely following the same iconography. Felix QW (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

PD-Art?

File:Thoth and Khepri from the Papyrus of Imenemsauf.jpg, File:Painting of Sokar.jpg, File:Tatenen painting.jpeg, File:Khonsu painting.jpg and possibly File:Metztli Rabbit.jpg all seem to be much too old to be still eligible for copyright protection, and thus probably there's no justification for their non-free use per WP:FREER if the photos of them are the only things eligible for copyright protection. Either the photos are Template:PD-Art or they are replaceable non-free use. The last file is not as clear because seems more like a "logo" that a photo, but I'm not sure and it still might not matter because it seems redundant to File:Rabbit 1.jpg (assuming that's correctly licensed). Any opinions as to whether these files need to remain non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

All but File:Painting of Sokar.jpg, which has a marked relief, seem to be essentially 2-dimensional to me and in my opinion could qualify for PD-Art. Felix QW (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice catch, I fixed the licenses on some of them. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

File:DSM-5-TR Cover.webp

Does this count as PD-shape? The cover of the previous edition is on commons under that tag. - nathanielcwm (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

c:File:DSM-5 Cover.png - nathanielcwm (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Under American law, I think it should count as PD-Shape. Felix QW (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I came across this cover while browsing Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions, saw it was clearly PD-Text or PD-Shape, and moved it to Commons already. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyright terms for foreign works

Recently I started changing many fair use files to {{PD-US-expired}} or {{PD-US-expired-abroad}} when I can determine the copyright expired. The American ones can go to Commons but I know the ones from abroad can only be moved if the copyright there has expired too, which is based on the life of the author. I'd like to move more things to Commons when possible, so I need to ask--who is the author in certain cases?

• If I'm looking at an old film still, is it the director?
• If it's an old movie poster, is it the artist? (Who's often unknown)
• If it's a book cover, I'm guessing it's also who illustrated the cover, not the author?

I also believe the general rule is that for anonymous works, or if the author can't be identified, it's treated as if the author died the year it was published. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 23:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Very annoyingly, every single person who contributed to the film has joint ownership of the copyright, and the expiration timer doesn't start until they all die. In a few countries, works published by companies have their own expiry time based on publication date; check the country's copyright rules by territory subpage.
• Yes, but in 99% of cases the author is unknown as you said. The poster is an anonymous work.
• Yes.

Generally, yes, but not generally enough that you can just assume that—check the country's copyright rules by territory subpage. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 23:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Image from Shutterstock

Hi all, I wanted to know if I correctly uploaded this image (as a test): File:Giorgia Meloni Rally Caserta 2022.jpg. The standard license states that such a photo may be used for editorial purposes. I would like to know if images from Shutterstock can be used and under what license. Thanks! Scia Della Cometa (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Scia Della Cometa. Unfortunately, the image you upload can't be kept because it fails a number of Wikipedia's non-free content use criteria. Generally, non-free images of still living persons like Giorgia Meloni aren't going to be allowed per WP:NFCC#1 (see WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI for more details) because it's almost always deemed reasonable to expect that a free equivalent image can either be found or created to serve pretty much the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one. In this case, there actually exist quite a lot of freely licensed images of Melonie which makes it almost impossible to upload any of her as non-free content. In addition to the replaceable non-free use issue, there are also contextual issues related to trying to use the file in 2022 Italian general election that fail WP:NFCC#8 (see WP:NFC#CS for more details). Finally, there are also issues with WP:NFCC#2 because the issue comes from Shutterstock. As explained in WP:F7 and item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI, images from commercial news agencies or image companies aren't accepted as non-free use except when the image itself is the subject of source critical commentary, which doesn's seem to be the case here at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for explaination ;). Another question: instead, can I upload their electoral posters? Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You can do so only if the posters are under a free license. Most images are copyrighted and would not be acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Scia Della Cometa. To further expand upon what Whpq posted above, unless it's really a very simple poster (e.g. nothing but plain text on a solid color background), you should at least start out assuming that it's protected by copyright. Assessing copyright can, however, be sometimes tricky because copyright laws can vary quite a bit from country to country. You can find out some more information about Italian copyright laws at c:COM:ITALY, and of other countries at c:COM:Copyright rules by territory. For Wikipedia's purposes, it's the copyright laws of the United States that tend to matter the most because that's where the Wikimedia Foundation servers are located. For Wikimedia Commons, however, the copyright laws of the United States and the copyright laws of the country of first publication equally matter because Wikimedia Commons tries to make the content it hosts as unencumbered by copyright restrictions as possible for anyone worldwide to reuse. So, unless there's a really clear reason under relevant copyright laws that the poster is either within the public domain (i.e. no longer eligible for copyright protection or never was eligible for copyright protection), or has clearly been released by its copyright holder under an acceptable free license, Wikipedia is most likely going to need to treat the poster as non-free content. This means that each use of the poster is going to need to satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria. For non-free posters, this typically means that they are either used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox about the organization or event the poster represents (e.g. a movie poster, a concert poster, a sporting event poster), or the poster itself is the subject of enough sourced critical commentary in the article or articles where its being to satisfy WP:NFC#CS. Of course, it's hard to give a more specific answer without knowing more about the poster, where you want to use it and how you want to use it. In general, anything resembling a WP:DECORATIVE type of non-free use (i.e. wanting the reader to see the poster just for the sake of being able to see it) is most likely not going to be deemed policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly! thank you very much, you have been very clear. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

File:African Girl, 1958 Expo.jpeg

Does File:African Girl, 1958 Expo.jpeg need to be treated as non-free? Assuming that the country of first publication was c:COM:BELGIUM, Belgium copyright law has a 70-year-pma for works by known authors and 70-year-limit after first publication for works by unknown authors. If this file can be converted to PD for some reason, then it probably can be moved to Commons and kept. If not, then it's non-free use in Human Zoo fails both WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 and the file needs to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The purported source site doesn't even give an age of the image, let alone any information about its authorship or place of publication (even if it were taken in Belgium, that wouldn't necessarily mean it was first published there.) Given the questionable provenance and copyright status, it wouldn't be suitable for Commons since it's uncertain at best whether it's PD, and of course is not appropriate for an article which contains plenty of free media. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The source site https://popularresistance.org/aboutus/ states Uncopyright Notice: You are free to re-publish any article or photograph that originates from Popular Resistance on this site so long as you provide a link to the original source to give Popular Resistance credit.

But I do not think the website or foundation in question own the copyright to this photograph, I'm not sure if it's even possible to track the original photographer or copyright holder.

I'm in support of converting it to PD; I think this picture really compliments the article (it's a pretty significant picture). --WikiLinuz {talk} 08:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Details about the photograph is sourced from CBC, https://web.archive.org/web/20211103174752/https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/features/human-zoos-a-shocking-history-of-shame-and-exploitation

CBC links to the popularresistance website. --WikiLinuz {talk} 08:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, Fair Use Notice: This website contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. --WikiLinuz {talk} 08:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

We can't just unilaterally "convert it to PD". It either is in the public domain, or it is not. If we don't know, we presume it is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

From the point of view of precaution, we certainly can't rule out that it was first published in Belgium in 1958, and that would still make it copyrighted there until 2029 at the earliest, with the consequence that per the URAA it would be copyrighted in the US until 2054. The image also clearly does not "originate" from Popular resistance, so their own license statement is not applicable to this image.

Unfortunately, I don't see a way to treat this image as a PD file. Felix QW (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Tag with Di-orphaned non-free use, when a file is being considered at FFD

I was surprised recently to be notified by User:B-bot that a file (File:AlphaFold 2 block design.png) had been tagged by it with {{Di-orphaned non-free use}} (diff - 25 May), when the file had already been nominated for FFD (diff - 22 May).

Is this right?

I would have thought that if a process is already underway to consider a file, that process should be allowed to conclude (and the file left available to view for anyone that might want to add a !vote), rather than being deleted while the FFD process is still running?

I would have commented on the B-Bot's talk page, but apparently it runs unattended (cf User talk:B-bot), so advises that any questions should be raised here.

For the record I am not particularly concerned about whether this particular image is kept or not, but (i) as mentioned at the FFD, if we are going to use the two 'replacement' images that have been added to the article in its place (diff), the article really does need to be updated and adapted to explain them (something that I personally don't currently have the time to research and write); and (ii) it does seem to me a significant general question, as to whether images ought to be tagged for an F5, if they are already under consideration at FFD.

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple taggings of files isn't uncommon especially when the reasons for the tagging are different. FWIW, the bot which tagged the file probably doesn't "see" that it's being discussed at FFD; it's only checking whether it's currently being used on any Wikipedia pages. WP:NFCC#9 violations, for example, are technically also WP:NFCC#7 violations but non-free files being used outside the article namespace almost never (at least based on my experience) will be tagged for F5 deletion by a bot, except when they have older still yet to be deleted non-free versions. In my opinion, a file being discussed at FFD is still considered a "valid" non-free use so to speak until the FFD determines it to not be as such. So, in principle, you should be able to re-add the file to the article where it's non-free use is being disputed if you feel that non-free use still needs assessing. If this involves whether a non-free file fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable non-free use, then the non-free probably still should be left as is until the FFD reaches that consensus; a free equivalent will not end up deleted (at least not speedily deleted after five days) if it's not used anywhere and it can replace the non-free once the FFD has been closed if that's the consensus. Other users, however, might feel differently and they it's acceptable to remove a file where its non-free use is disputed when they nominate the file for discussion at FFD. If they do such a thing, they're encouraged by the FFD instructions to mention they've removed the articles where the file was being used, but some might not do so. For reference, files that are deleted are just hidden from public view and they can be restored at a later date if deemed necessary. A non-free file can't be displayed on an article talk page or anywhere else outside the article namespace for discussion purposes, but an external link showing the file (e.g. the file's source url) can be provided to aid in discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Image from Argentine Ministry of Defence

Hi, I have found some images of a new tank that the Argentine Army is testing, and it appears all of them trace back to the Argentine Ministry of Defence. The images are however shared on a number of sites, many not affiliated with the Argentine Government. Would it be reasonable to suggest these images fall under public domain/are free to use? Here is one example of an article with some of the images: https://militaryleak.com/2023/05/13/argentine-ministry-of-defense-tests-upgraded-tam-2cac-medium-tank/

Thanks :) DevonianShark (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@DevonianShark Unlike the US government, works of the Government of Argentina are not automatically PD. Without explicit statements, I don't see a way of assuming this image is PD. Nthep (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Juilliard School at the Lincoln Center in 1969.jpeg

Given that that File:Juilliard School at the Lincoln Center in 1969.jpeg is said to have been taken in 1969 and most likely was first published somewhere prior to it being used here, I'm wondering whether this needs to be non-free free and could possibly be {{PD-US-no notice}} instead. If not, then it's non-free use may need to be assessed because it's not really clear whether it meets WP:NFCC#8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Photo taken by a fan on Twitter

Hi. I want to upload an image of singer Wang Yiren. Would this image be allowed on Wikimedia? https://twitter.com/wangyiren_kr_/status/1165943541438140416?s=20

If so, what license tag should I use? Thanks! HoneyKpop (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing no explicit license tag. So, if there's no applicable license, is there any way to get permission to upload it? I've seen that before but I don't understand how it works. HoneyKpop (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi HoneyKpop If there's no explicit license provided for the photo, you should assume that it's copyrighted. The next thing to do would be to figure out who the copyright holder is. Once you find that out, you can try asking them to release the photo under an acceptable free license as explained in WP:PERMISSION. In principle, the person taking a photo is considered to own the copyright on it, and figuring out who the copyright holder is sometimes tricky when it comes to photos uploaded to social media because lots of people upload photos that they like even though they aren't the copyright holders of the photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Upload image from a published paper

Can a figure from a published paper be uploaded to wikipedia? Cardiocaths (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Usually, the author of the paper or the publisher will own the copyright, and will not have licensed it under an acceptable license for use on Wikipedia, so no. What image are you interested in uploading? A more experience contributor could take a look and see if any exceptions apply. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Many academic papers are being published under Creative Commons licenses, so it may be the case that the image you want to use is acceptable. The image/paper would need to have been published with an acceptably free license. Not all Creative Commons licenses are accepted. Some papers have no Creative Commons license (standard copyright applies to those), and others sometimes specify ND (no derivatives), or NC (non-commercial use only). These would not be uploaded. The only exception is if the image qualified as non-free content by satisfying all of the non-free content criteria. Is there a specific image from a specific paper you are thinking of? Post the url or DOI for paper so we can look at specifics. -- Whpq (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The image in question is the future with the abstract at this url: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.13654 Cardiocaths (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That article is copyrighted. See "© 2021 by American Heart Association, Inc." on the page with the article information. There is no other licensing present that I can see. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems as if Circulation is a classic subscription journal, whose content is not available under a free license. One could argue about the threshold of originality of those charts though, as they seem to be a very obvious reproduction of raw data/information which is in itself not copyrightable. Felix QW (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. Can a similar diagram modified from that abstract image be used? What guidelines are there for modifications? Cardiocaths (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In an ideal world, such a diagram should be made directly from the raw data used in the study. Then there would be no doubt about its usability. However, one could also read the data from the diagram and then make a new version. Is there one diagram among the four that particularly interests you? Felix QW (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

There is the question if the image is in the right license or in fair use, but underlying both, the paper must have some type of publication, even if not the formal publication in the target journal. So for example, if the authors post their paper to Arvix before its acceptance and publication, then that's sufficient for our purposes. That said, without the peer-review approve and publication in the journal, the reliability may be of issue. --Masem (t) 21:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Just going to add that the copyright holder needs to be the author or authors of the paper itself for the license of the paper to be applicable. If the authors were using an image they got from somewhere or someone else, then things become a bit more complicated because it would depend on the copyright status of the image itself. If the image is already in the public domain (i.e. either never eligible or no longer eligible for copyright protection) or is released under a free license acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes by its copyright holder, then it should be OK to use regardless of the copyright status of the paper itself. I'd imagine that the authors of academic papers are, for the most part, pretty dilligent when it comes to properly citing sources and attributing images since their reputation can suffer greatly if they're found to be not careful when it comes to such things; so, check the paper to see whether the authors state where the image came from. You could also try doing a Google image search of the image to see whether anyone else is using it and whether those other uses are attributing it to the authors of the paper or someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)