Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Click here to ask your question
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
  1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
  2. 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 the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
  3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
  4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
  5. Hit Publish changes.
  6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
  1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to ask your question" link above.
  2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
  3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
  4. 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.

Case for audio sample use in The Phenomenauts[edit]

Hello, I would like to make a case for including sample audio clips in The Phenomenauts. Is this the right place, or should I post somewhere else?

I have been reading and following the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples. I have worked to comply with everything there. The Manual says "Music samples can be a valuable addition to articles about bands". My impression is that including sample audio clips is encouraged to help strengthen an article. Is that incorrect?

I have:

  • Clipped the audio to 10% of the originial length
  • Reduced the quality of each audio clip as specified in the MoS
  • Added licensing information and a fair use rationale for each
  • Worked to use a minimal number of samples to help comply with minimal use
  • Used the articles inside a section that discuses each of them in turn, and relates them to the band and the subject of the article.
    • For example, the three clips used in the Musical style section cover and illustrate the range of the band's music - rockabilly, new wave, and fast punk drum beats. Each of these is discussed in the section.
    • The audio clip used in the Promoting science and learning section is the band's motto, that consolidates their view on promoting science and learning. It is discussed in the section where it is most appropriate and related.

I have been looking at other example band articles, such as Tool_(band). This is a Featured Article that also makes use of sample audio clips. I have worked to incorporate them and use a small number to match. The MoS Music samples page also points to Love._Angel._Music._Baby., a Featured Article that uses audio clips.

The audio clips were recently removed. I would like to achieve consensus here and make a case that their use in the article is appropriate and justified.

Thanks for reading. --Culix (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Hi Seraphimblade, since you proposed that the audio clips should be removed, I just wanted to add a note here in case you are interested in discussing it. Please do not feel obligated but I would highly welcome your feedback. Pardon the ping. --Culix (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
That many audio clips is highly excessive. It's possible one could be justifiable to show what the band sounds like, if supported by references, but we don't even use five in The Beatles. And these guys ain't The Beatles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I will re-examine the references and critical commentary to see what is the most relevant to see if there is a case.
Does it seem like Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples could use some clarification on the suggested number of samples that should be used? Or perhaps suggestions on how to determine what is appropriate? To me, reading "Music samples can be a valuable addition to articles about bands", as well as "There is no limit to the number of samples that can be used in one article" makes it sound at first that editors are free to choose the number of samples to include. Linking to Love._Angel._Music._Baby.#Songs as the canonical example seems to support using multiple files, since it uses three.
If the intended goal is much lower (e.g. if we think it should normally be zero), that feels useful to note. Perhaps we also want to include suggestions on determining notability and relevance.
I may write something up on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music_samples to see if clarification would help. Then the discussion doesn't risk being auto-archived. --Culix (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Seraphimblade: Okay, I have made some edits. Do you have time to take a look? The strongest case might be for the song "Mission". This song was released after the band added a fifth member playing keyboard. It is an example of their synth/new wave style, incorporating keyboard sounds.

The song has received commentary from reviewers, such as saying it "added an extra layer" of sound to the band. I have incorporated commentary into the article, such as a reviewer saying that the song in particular was "an excellent example" of versatility, as well as talking about how the song incorporated styles from several music genres (second paragraph).

The song was notable for being included on the Warped Tour 2005 compilation CD. The music video for the song was also on the front page of both YouTube and Myspace back in 2006, where it received several hundred thousand views. It is also the shortest of the audio clips I had created, at 14 or 15 seconds.

How is that? Does this seem like a stronger/strong enough case for meeting contextual significance? I am happy to make further edits if that will help. I will continue to review the sources and think about this in the meantime. --Culix (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo[edit]

What was the problem with the audio file here exactly? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123. The file was removed by JJMC89 most likely because the non-free use rationale for its use in the article claims that some of the non-free content use criteria are n.a. (non-applicable). For reference, there are ten non-free content use criteria and each of them must be satisfied for each use of a non-free file; so, techinically there are no "non-applicable criteria". JJMC89 can probably clarify this, but I believe you just need to flesh out the non-free use rationale a bit more to more clearly explain how all of the criteria are being met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for explaining. That was one of my earliest audio uploads (2010) when I was a lot less adept or knowledgeable. I've updated the rationale now and I hope that will be suitable. I'll await clarification from JJMC89. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Martinevans123: It was remove because there was no rationale for Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo, only Georgie Fame. Now that you've updated it, there is no rationale for the latter. Also, WP:NFCC are never not applicable (new rationale has |Replaceability=n.a. and |Commercial=n.a.). — JJMC89(T·C) 16:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Georgie Fame[edit]

What was the problem with this audio file here exactly? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

See above. — JJMC89(T·C) 16:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Very sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. You seem to be telling me that the format of the NFCC template has now changed. I'm really not sure how to correct either rationale to be compliant. At the end of the day it's exactly the same audio sample. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying the statement for the sample at Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo is now acceptable? If so, could you restore it? Are you saying that it can only be used in one of those two articles? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Off-hand, I can't imagine any other article where its use would meet our stringent restrictions on the use of non-free files. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
You replaced the original rationale, which was for Georgie Fame, with one for Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo. A non-free image must have a rationale for each article it is to be used in (WP:NFCC#10c). The current rational has |Replaceability=n.a. and |Commercial=n.a., indicating those criteria are not applicable; however, all NFCC are always applicable. Therefore, the current rationale doesn't support use in any article. If those two items are completed, then it could be acceptable in Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I have now adjusted those two fields. But from what is written below, that may make no difference whatsoever? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually neither of the two uses complies with our strict non-free policy which must comply with all 10 criteria and neither article has any critical commentary about the song. File:Georgie Fame and the Blue Flames Do The Dog excerpt.ogg also need to comply with the guidelines found at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Audio clips. Normally non-free use is allowable in article about the topic itself but there is no such article for the song. I know it has been around for some years but that is no reason to keep it if it fails our policy. I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion unless someone writes an article about the song itself or writes some sourced critical commentary about the song in the Georgie Fame article. To me it fails any likely use in Rhythm and Blues at the Flamingo as neither the song nor the album were "commercially unsuccessful" so there is little possibility of justifying it use there which already use a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 09:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
ww2censor, could you clarify what you mean above - that article says quite clearly that both it and the single were "commercially unsuccessful"? There seems to be some dispute here about whether that clip can be used in any article. If I had known this 10 years ago I could probably have wasted a lot less time adding audio clips to quite a few other articles. I was under the mistaken impression that they added to an "understanding" of the artist/ album concerned. (Take, for example, the audio clips at Van der Graaf Generator, added with the agreement of User:Ritchie333 and which is currently rated a Good Article; presumably they must all be removed also?) I'm also still unsure as to what constitutes "commercially successful". I'm still none the wiser as to whether or not a single audio file can be used to illustrate two different articles. From what you say above, about a sample being valid only for an article about a song, that would seen to be impossible. I'm also left wondering if there is any place for such music clips at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Would someone care to provide a definitive summary and conclusion here?? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Martinevans123: I already stated the usual uses of non-free media and if the song does not have its own article them maybe it is just not notable enough to warrant one. If it was commercially unsuccessful then it probably is not notable unless there was some controversy about it or something else that makes it stand out. It would be a pity to have wasted effort on work that may be deleted but it happens, even years afterwards. Unfortunately other stuff exist is not a reason to keep other similar things. If you want to use such an audio file to show some of an artist's style you will need to provide some critical commentary about the song, per WP:NFCC#8, but it needs to be supported by published reliable sources. I don't see that this clip can satisfy WP:NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
ww2censor, yes I saw what you wrote, many thanks. I was asking for clarification, because what you said seemed to be slightly at odds with what JJMC89 said. I've also been discussing this with User:Ojorojo, who tells me there is now a new format for audio clips. Do you mean if the album wasn't sufficiently successful, or the song itself? And how does one make that judgement - is there a criterion? Are the requirements for critical commentary different between articles for artists and albums? Can the same clip be used in more than one article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It would be very useful if you could point to one or two exemplar cases where there are no issues over fair use justification. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

File:JUUL Twitter Post.png[edit]

Can the JUUL Twitter Post be uploaded to Wikipedia and used in an article under WP:FAIRUSE? QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I have some difficulty conceptualizing a scenario where such a screenshot would satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Non-free content images can be used on a case-by-case basis. If that is the case then this one may need to be deleted. There may be more images in the article that may violate copyvio. QuackGuru (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My non free Copyright to my artical Mushroom a collectors Item pdf file by Colm link Lynch[edit]

Which tag do I use to copyright my non free artical and how to I do this. I am not a good computer user. Kind regards Colm Lynch — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmly (talkcontribs) 19:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are talking about File:Mushroom By Colm`link Lynch.pdf you don't. Wikipedia doesn't accept non-free material like that and we are not a hosting site for your book. Even if you were to release it under a free license that is not the point of Wikipedia at all. We are not a publishing house or someplace to publish your work. --Majora (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Madrid#Picasso's Guernica[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Madrid#Picasso's Guernica. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:No-one likes a quitter, e-cigarette ad.jpg[edit]

I am concerned this non-free image is a copyright violation. The image does not appear to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Goody two shoes cigarette ad.jpg[edit]

I am concerned this non-free image is also a copyright violation. The image does not appear to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. QuackGuru (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about copyright status[edit]

I am concerned that the advertisements could have inappropriate licensing. While they have been taken from government PDFs, they could have separate copyright statuses. QuackGuru (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Commons. De728631 (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Another concern about copyright status[edit]

I am concerned that logo is a copyright violation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: These are all hosted at Wikimedia Commons. You're welcome to either nominate such files for deletion over there or ask at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. As to this particular file, it needs a verification of the licence so I tagged it as such. De728631 (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Photograph of an advertisement sign[edit]

On page 8 there is a photograph of an advertisement sign. Is the photograph on page 8 in the public domain since it was taken in a public place? QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it's not PD. Freedom of panorama in the US is limited to buildings only, but sculptures and 2-dimensional artwork are still copyrighted even if outdoors. So as this is a report on the situation in California, there's no reason to assume that the photo was taken in a country where the poster would be PD. De728631 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Was this taken in Canada? different rules apply there. It would not be an infringement of copyright there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually it would, Graeme Bartlett. c:COM:FOP#Canada: The freedom provided by the quoted section does not apply to typical two-dimensional works such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place, unless they are in the public domain. --Majora (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It was probably taken in the US. Exactly where nobody knows. I am trying to find other images that are compatible with Wikipedia. I think I have found potential candidates. See here on Fickrs. It is under creative commons. See here. It is in the public domain. QuackGuru (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The Flickr one is a derivative work so wouldn't be able to be uploaded to Commons. The one from The Guardian has potential. I would love to know where they got it from though. --Majora (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It is listed under creative commons for all 22 pictures. I don't know where they got the other image for The Guardian. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
My mistake. If the Flickr account also created the van design then it would be fine. I was thinking they took a photo of a random van and posted it to the Flickr account. That would be derivative. --Majora (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The Flickr account did not create the van ad. They took several photos and listed them under creative commons.
I do not know how to do a google image search for The Guardian photo. If such a search was performed then we may be able to find out where they got it from. QuackGuru (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh I already did. The only other use of it Google could find was from [1]. Also with no reason as to why the image is in the public domain. As for the van, if the Flickr photographer didn't create the ad then they can't release the ad under a free license. That would be like you taking a picture of a book cover and trying to release it under Creative Commons. It would be considered a derivative work and wouldn't be uploadable to Commons. --Majora (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The van photo is derivative work and not compatible with Wikipedia. There is still the other image. Is it okay to upload the The Guardian photo under the public domain?
I also found this on Flickr. It is listed under creative commons but I am not sure if the company uploaded the images. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The only issue with The Guardian photo that would raise red flags is that we don't know why it is public domain. Did the author do that? Where did it come from? I doubt The Guardian staff created it and put it in the public domain. That one is a gray area I'm afraid.

As for the other image, if you can find a link between that Flickr profile and the company in question then yes. Unfortunately, I see very little evidence to that. You could also contact them and ask them if they would put a link to that Flickr account somewhere on that page or send in a note to OTRS verifying that the person is authorized. --Majora (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a screenshot from the original e-cig ad from back in 2015. The company is not allowed to show that ad anymore because it promoted smoking. I assumed The Guardian staff contacted the company and they gave them permission under the Public Domain to use a screenshot. As for the other image, I would have to contact the company directly to upload the video. QuackGuru (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

What is a non-free content?[edit]

I have found no explicit definition about what is actually considered a non-free content. As per Commons (possibly not applicable here), for a content to be considered free, it must be free in both the United States and in its source jurisdiction. In particular, if a content is free in the United States but not in its source jurisdiction, should it use a non-free exception template? Thanks --Discasto (talk) 12:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

On Commons, all content that is not free in both the source country and the US is non-free.
On the English Wikipedia, content that is free in the US but not in the source country is free and doesn't require a non-free tag and rationale (you an tag it with {{Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly}}). Content that is free in the source country but not in the US is considered non-free on Wikipedia and needs a non-free tag and rationale (you can tag it with an additional {{Non-free in US}}). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It's interesting to find out this. Could you point at the English Wikipedia policy that states that? Especially as it is not documented and blatantly contradicts Wikipedia:Non-free content: Wikipedia's goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. We're not talking about a copyright enforceable in a tiny jurisdiction, but in the source jurisdiction. The English Wikipedia is not the US Wikipedia (as far as I know). --Discasto (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Here you go, Discasto: Wikipedia:Copyrights#Governing copyright law, Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 21:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Discasto: On Commons, all content is free in both the source country and the US. Content that is free on US Wkipedia was generally published before 1923. Coldcreation (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Coldcreation: "US Wikipedia"? Are you serious? --Discasto (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Discasto: I'm pretty sure that was just a harmless mistake, so I probably wouldn't read to much into it. As for your original question, there are cases where a file originating in a country other than the US is licensed as Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. As pointed out above, this is usually because the file (if it originated in the US) would be considered to be PD for one reason or another. So, such files are treated as PD locally on English Wikipedia (because that's where the servers are located), and only pages on English Wikipedia can use them. Commons files on the other hand will not accept such files unless they are PD in both the US and in their country of origin. This is because the Commons servers are also located in the US, but Commons file can be used by any Wikimedia project. Generally, files are licensed this way because they are too old to be under copyright protection in the US, but it also is done sometimes for logos, etc. which are too simple for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO#United States, but may still be too complex to be treated as PD in their country of origin (for example, c:COM:TOO#United Kingdom). On the flip side of the coin, there are cases where a file might be PD within its country of origin, but is still considered copyright protected by the US. In such cases, the file is treated as non-free content on English Wikipedia (because once again that's where the servers are located), which means it needs a non-free use rationale for each use, and needs to satisfy all of the other NFCCP. An example of this is Template:PD-Australia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

KM Sinar Bangun[edit]

Hi, I found this photo on Facebook. [2]

Copyright is hazy in Indonesia. No idea the photographer etc.

The subject of the photo is now at the bottom of the lake. It is not clear if other photos of the vessel exist. Sumbuddi (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sumbuddi: Based on this Indonesia entry for photographic work, 1971 seems to be the magic date and that Facebook photo is likely much more recent. However, the source gives no information about the date the image was taken and when, or if, it was ever published previously. Maybe you can find the photographer and ask them to release it under a free licence, so we can use it. Have you asked at the Indonesia wiki? ww2censor (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Image from German Wikipedia - File:Troccas-0-der-narr.jpg[edit]

Hi, I've imported the above image from German Wikipedia and copied the summary info across. I've also credited the German user who uploaded it. Is there anything else I need to do to? Is there an 'automated' way of transferring these images from German Wiki I can use? Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Bermicourt: Why copy it here when it could be available to all language wikis if you uploaded it to the commons instead? ww2censor (talk) 18:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Ww2censor: Because it has a tag on German Wiki saying "do not transfer to Commons without an individual review" and so the commonshelper tool I use to do that won't work. I don't know why it's tagged when we know the creator died in 1851, so copyright presumably expired in 1951 or earlier. I'm assuming good faith, of course, on the part of the German user who uploaded it. Bermicourt (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Bermicourt: that's curious as it seems to be out of copyright so a reviewer could have reviewed it before uploading to the commons. You could tag it {{move to commons}}. ww2censor (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

FlightRadar 24 screenshots use[edit]

Hello! Just to be sure - are FlightRadar screenshots allowed to be posted? My guess is not, since the map overlay is probably Google's, right? Just to be sure... (I was unable to find this topic anywhere in Commons discussions, hence this question.) --GeXeS (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct, not usable. No indication anywhere that the maps would be under a free-license. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Youth Olympic Games.svg[edit]

Was wondering if this needs to be non-free. The Olympic Games ring imagery seems to be PD, and the text is not really eligible for copyright protection. Could the frame/box imagery be considered creative enough to be copyright protected? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

BBFC film classification logos[edit]

Is there any reason why File:BBFC PG.svg, File:BBFC 12.svg and File:BBFC 18.svg need to be treated as non-free and not {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} like File:BBFC 12 1989-2002.png and File:BBFC 18 1982-2002.png? Also, its not clear why File:BBFC 15 1982-2002.png and File:PG-12.png need separate rationales/licenses for the UK and US. If Wikipedia is going to treat the files locally as PD-ineligible-USonly, then complying with WP:NFCCP shouldn't be a concern. If, on the other hand, there is some reason why the files need to comply with the NFCCP, then most of the ways they are currently being used aren't policy compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Personal Photos Being Deleted[edit]


I realized many photos that I have uploaded to Wikipedia have been deleted. The comments vary from "the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy", "the image is non-free and may only be used used in any articles on Wikipedia" etc, see attached long list of items.

I am new to making edits but those photos are of my personal contribution which I have endorsed for Wikipedia's use only and of high quality when I uploaded them. They have been changed to lower quality and ultimately deleted/ removed. Frankly, I have no idea on how to continue making updates as I have put in a lot of effort but in the end, most of the information have been wiped out. Please look into my case, thank you so much.

Warmest Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenchua (talkcontribs)

Hi Zenchua. It's generally OK to upload personal photos under a free license as long as they are of things which are not still under copyright protection and that copyright is held by another person; for example, you take a personal picture of the sunset and upload that to Wikipedia if you want, but you can't necessarily take a photograph of a magazine or book cover, etc. and do the same thing. In other words, unless you actually hold the copyright over the magazine or book cover you photographing, you can't automatically claim copyright ownership over it even if you have physical ownership of the book or magazine. What you've created might be considered a WP:DERIVATIVE in some cases, but the copyright of the original content being photographed typically still needs to be considered.
Wikipedia does, however, allow certain types of copyrighted content to be uploaded locally as non-free content. The permission of the original copyright holder is not needed for such files, but what type of files may be uploaded and how these files may subsequently be used is highly restricted by Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and files which don't staisfy this policy can be removed or deleted as needed. Generally, non-free files are required to be low resolution per non-free content use criterion 3, so that probably explains why the high quality versions you uploaded were reduced in some way. Non-free files are also required to satisfy nine other non-free content use criteria for each use, so that probably explains why the files were removed. I'm going to ping Nthep and Stefan2 since they appear to be two of the editors who added image notifications to your user talk page or removed files and maybe they can provide more specific details about individual images.
Finally, from your username and the fact that most of the images you've uploaded appear to be to Morgan Chua, I am wondering if you might be connected to him in some personal or professional way. If this is the case, then most likely you have what is know as a "conflict of interest" or "COI" with respect to anything written about him on Wikipedia, and thus should take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The Wikipedia community doesn't expressly prohibit COI editing, but it does highly discourage it with good reason, and COI editors are expected to adhere to relevant policies and guidelines when they edit. So, the more familiar you're with these policies and guidelines, the fewer problems you're likely to encunter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly,
Those photos are of my personal collection which I’m willing to share and are not copyrighted. Also, those covers are designed by Morgan Chua, the ownership belongs to him since the publishers have eased production and the covers are more than 30-45 years ago.
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenchua (talkcontribs) 05:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if copyrights of magazine covers, etc. automatically become void when the magazine, etc. itself ceases publication, even after 30-45 years. It's possible that someone else may still hold the copyright or share copyright ownership of them even if Chua designed them. Maybe another editor can clarify this for you. Even still, if they're not under copyright any longer, then most likely Wikipedia is not going to be able to accept non-free photos of them per Non-free content use criterion #1 just because somone else might possibly be able to take a similar photo and release it under a free license for the photo and and a Template:PD-URAA Template:PD-US-no notice or some other suitable license for the cover image, or find an image of the cover online or somewhere else and do basically the same thing.
One last thing about adding images to articles that has nothing to do with copyright licenses. Adding an image is like adding textual content in that it's OK to be WP:BOLD, but another editor may subsequently remove the image because they feel it's not encyclopedically relevant to the reader. The thing to do then would be to start a discussion on the relevant article's talk page per WP:BRD and try to work through the dispute. A consensus may be need to be establish for including a particular image in the article even if its licensing is not an issue. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be image galleries so to speak, so too many images might be seen as excessive by some.
Finally, you should clarify if there's any connection between you and Chua because this will make it much easier to try and help you when it comes to editing that article. The description of File:Morgan Chua.jpg says that Chua has a sone named "Zen Chua", so if that's you then please clarify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Another note: Per WP:NFCC#10a, non-free files should have a source. File:Photo of Morgan Chua (Courtesy of SPH).jpg lists the source as 'SPH' but it doesn't say who or what SPH is, so I think that the source needs to be improved.
It seems that User:Nthep removed several images from the Morgan Chua article and that User:Diannaa removed some text from the article. They might be able to explain to you what they did and why they did so. Generally, we seek to avoid using too much non-free content. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed some quotations. There were about 700 words of quotations in a 1500-word article, nearly half the article. This is excessive, as our non-free content policy requires us for the most part to write articles in our own words and use quotations sparingly and selectively and only when there's no alternative. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Zenchua: you say above "Those photos are of my personal collection which I’m willing to share and are not copyrighted" however you have uploaded them all as non-free content and in my opinion the use of all of these in one article fails WP:NFCC#3a - "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." It doesn't take multiple illustrations of Chua's work to illustrate his style. Neither do images like File:Morgan Chua Bruce 2014.jpg add anything to the reader's knowledge. So there are two issues to my mind:
  1. Who is the copyright holder for each image, and if they are out of copyright why have the images not been uploaded as such,
  2. If they aren't out of copyright how does multiple use assist the reader is understanding Chua's style. Nthep (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Rape in the United States has included copyvio for nine years; is revdel still the solution?[edit]

Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) here. Posting this logged out to avoid the attention of the article's creator, who has an uncomfortable history with me because of my tagging a bunch of their edits for close paraphrasing giving the impression of "hounding", and I have a serious question that I think probably needs answering without being dragged down by drama. If anyone else wants to notify the creator as a courtesy, fire ahead. I'll probably post here logged in once my question is answered.

Basically most of the text of the first edit was lifted from this source without being marked as a quotation, and this text is largely still intact in the "Investigations" section. The offending text can be removed or paraphrased no problem, but do the 550+ edits that have been made in the article's nine-year history and include non-free text all need to be revdelled? I've seen this done with new articles, or obscure niche articles that have been around for a while but no one edited them, but ... here ... (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

One suggestion would be to carefully re-draft the article without the copyvio. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Just remove or rewrite the copyvio. WP:RD1 requires that revdel use not remove the attribution of legitimate contributors. One may argue that this rule is not always obeyed, but IMO it makes hiding all 550+ edits to the article inappropriate. BethNaught (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
BethNaught, RD1 does not remove the attribution unless it removes the username. Our license allows for attribution by simple list, and admins can always see the diffs, which is why this is a non-issue. This is common practice for decade old copyvio (see William H. Keeler as an example). That being said, this doesn’t need RD1 in my opinion because there were limited ways of phrasing it. It falls within discretion and since it’s arguably limited close paraphrase, RD1 in these circumstances might be overkill. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Hijiri88: MCQ typically deals with media copyright issues. Problems with copyrighted text probably should be taken care of per WP:COPYVIO. So, if the answers you've gotten so far aren't exactly what you were looking for, you might also try asking for help at WP:CP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, the above answers have sufficed so it's kinda moot, but ... arrgh ... I was interpreting the "non-free content" at the top of this page as covering text as well. Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
And the above is exactly why I originally posted logged out. DF has already been censured by overwhelming community consensus for this "stop hounding me" (ironic that he immediately noticed when I posted here while logged in), "I never violated copyright shut up", "you are insane", "you are a deletionist and hate ARS and want to destroy it" harassment, and really should be more careful about continuing it immediately after the thread was closed. Could someone now close this so it won't continue here? Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You put things between quotation marks and people will assume I actually said those words. That is misleading people. The administrator said "he should try to avoid your contributions and shouldn't seek them out." You violated his instructions. Dream Focus 23:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It would be nice if editors could write without using Wiki-jargon so that more folks could understand and make suggestions. Thanks for listening. Some of these abbreviations confuse me even though I have BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
While I agree the excessive jargon is probably counterproductive, most of what's used above are just short-cut links to relevant pages with the alternative being to write out the entire page name as the link instead. Clicking on the links will take you to a page where more details can be found. Of the ones which don't appear to have been linked, "MCQ" is the short-cut link for this particular noticeboard, "copyvio" refers to "copyright violation", and "revdel" refers to "revision deletion" as mentioned in WP:RD1. Using shorthand such as this is often done on noticeboards perhaps since its assumed (maybe mistakenly and maybe too much) that those participating are more than likely to understand it, but asking for clarification when you don't is perfectly fine. For what it's worth (FWIW), similar shorthand is often used in edit sums (perhaps you've done so yourself Face-wink.svg) for the sake of brevity, with links being provided instead to more detailed pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Australian images and URAA[edit]

This is a backlogged category: Category:PD-Australia_images_with_unknown_US_copyright_status_for_over_30_days,

What would the feasibility of just converting them to NFCC style images be? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean with a realistic chance of keeping them? Or converting them to speedyable non-free files that lack valid rationales? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 14:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
With full rationales obviously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

File:John Doubleday with the Portland Vase.jpg[edit]

Would someone please advise as to the correct copyright tag for this work? It's an 1845 photograph that appears to have been first published in 1989 (i.e., 144 years after creation). I thought the current tag, PD-old-70-1923, would work because there is virtually no way that the photographer would have been alive 70 years ago (i.e., 103 years after taking the photograph), but this was called into question at FAC. Is there some sort of unpublished tag that would work instead? From what I can glean online, the photograph would have passed into the public domain in 1965, 120 years after creations. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The 120 years from creation rule is not to be used for anything published before 2003. Furthermore, you are making the error of looking at the section for unpublished works on this page. Once a work becomes published, you should instead look at the correct section for published works. Note that US law didn't allow unpublished works to enter the public domain at all before 2003.
If it was first published between 1 March and 31 December 1989, then the copyright expires in 2048. See c:COM:HIRTLE, "Date of Publication" = "1 March 1989 through 2002", "Conditions" = "Created before 1978 and first published in this period". The copyright term is "The greater of the term specified in the previous entry or 31 December 2047" - and 31 December 2047 is greater than the term in the previous entry, so that's what you should use.
If it was first published between 1 January and 28 February 1989, then you need to figure out whether the book had a valid copyright notice (or whether the book was registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years from publication). If there was a copyright notice or registration, then the copyright term still expires in 2048. If there was neither a copyright notice nor a registration, then it's in the public domain (use {{PD-1996}}).
What makes you believe that this wasn't published anywhere before it appeared in that book? Where did the book author find the image? Was the author in contact with people (such as relatives) who might have previously unpublished photos, or was the author only using other pre-existing publications as references? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Trademark vs. copyright and lots of logos at Tectoy[edit]

Hi all, I haven't been super-active on Wikipedia in a while and could use some guidance on logo copyright as I clean up an article. I'm working on a complete rewrite of Tectoy, a Brazilian company, and the editors before have added not one, not two, but three different logos of the company, and all of them are tagged as copyrighted. My question to the copyright experts here:

  • I can see the image in the infobox should be copyrighted, but wouldn't the last image on the page be trademarked but only a logo in typeface and therefore not copyrighted?
  • Would the first individual image be copyrighted? It appears to me that it should because I think it's more than just typeface, but it's basically typeface extending from a center point in 3D.
  • Does the fact that these logos are from Brazil and a Brazilian company affect the copyright/trademark status?
  • Depending on these answers, is it excessive to use all three images as they are, or should one or two be removed to meet the minimal use criterion of WP:NFCC? Worthy of note is that the first image in the prose, the one with the 3D logo, is one of the most important self-identifying logos because of the number of Sega products marked with that logo in the area.

I appreciate your feedback. Thank you, Red Phoenix talk 16:02, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The second and third logos are 100% {{PD-textlogo}}. Without a doubt. Those can be changed over and probably transferred over to Commons, although a non-.JPG version would be preferable for display on Wikipedia articles. As for the first one, I'm on the fence. Brazil actually has a higher threshold of originality than the US does so it is probably PD in Brazil. But it is probably below that bar in the US and therefore copyrightable here. So if it is copyrightable here it should stay under fair use. Trademarks don't matter as they are non-copyright restrictions. --Majora (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, take a look[edit]

To patrollers and administrators,

Please, take a look at File:Danish Order of Freemasons (Den Danske Frimurerorden) - logo.png#Licensing:

"To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an 'appropriate' rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template."

If the rationale is okay, please mark it so. --PetersenAndersen (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ex Librio William Roughead[edit]

I have a book from 1917 that has a Ex Librio William Roughead label in the front. It's a rather nice design. Can I upload it under {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, or is there enough ambiguity that I shouldn't?

That said, I doublechecked, and the image on the label is dated: 1907 R. Home. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)