Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


File:Multimedia PC (logo).png

Normally I understand what is copyrighted and what is too simple to be copyrighted, but this is one of the images that I find hard to figure out. It concerns the Multimedia PC logo. It originated in the United States, so we are left with judging the logo by American standards.

The logo is uploaded under Fair Use and apparently back in 2006, but I think it may be in the public domain. It contains the letters "MPC" and beneath that the trademarked label "Multimedia PC". We know for certain that "Multimedia PC" and the last two initials in MPC are common property, so we are left with only the first initial. The M contains a gradient that from top to bottom is blue, purple, red, and yellow. Note that as it is a raster image that almost certainly was created on a computer with a limited graphical palette, it uses dither, the process of mixing colors to get the illusion of having more colors. I have doubts that dithering alone is copyrightable, as it is an artistic technique that has been used to work around the limitation of having a narrow palette. Perhaps the part that deserves the most of our attention is the CD composing the lower half of the M. The round and solid disk is not particularly artistic, but it does contain two opposing curved trapezoids that each have four or arguably five white triangles added for a shining effect in a spinning disk. If I understand U.S. law correctly, I do not believe that even that representation of a disk counts as being more than "simple geometric shapes and text" required for copyright protection, but I need second opinions just to be sure and to have a better understanding of U.S. copyright law. GaɱingFørFuɲ365 16:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gamingforfun365: it's an edge case, and as such, I'd opt for a cautious approach (i.e. keeping it as non-free). Enough elements, even if individually considered too simple, can amount to a whole that is above the threshold of originality. You have a good analysis of the dither effect as a historically fairly commonplace practice that derives from technical limitations. But it has a pretty original choice of colors, no doubt intended to artistically represent a reflection from a CD. And then there's the disc that is more than just a round circle. Plus overall composition. In sum, there is a lot going on in this logo. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving files to Commons with suppressed versions

Hi. Can I have some advice please at Wikipedia talk:Moving files to Commons#Moving files with suppressed versions? I am trying to move a file originally uploaded incorrectly as fair-use when it should have been UKPDGov. The automatic transfer to Commons won't work due to a suppressed version in the history. Thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Replied there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I have a question about the copyright status of bathymetric maps like these ones. As pointed out by Huntster at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#EarthRef.org bathymetric maps there is a copyright statement on their disclaimer page which says that the files are CC-BY 4.0.

However, it looks like the website allows people with ORCID accounts to contribute files. It's not clear if they they demand that a donated file is licensed as CC-BY 4.0. Does anyone know? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC) It's also not clear whether they vet donated maps for accuracy, but I think in many instances one can cross check them against non-free maps.

Pinging Nikkimaria, Jameslwoodward to see if someone with more image license reviewing experience knows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

The copyright and privacy page says:

"All materials posted at EarthRef.org, except where otherwise noted, are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."

Therefore, unless otherwise noted, anybody posting there gives a CC-BY 4.0 license. Of course, we must watch out for license laundering, but that's true anywhere. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Intercepted communications for article of a notable flight

Ukrainian news website TSN has released intercepted communications between pilot of an Iranian airline and the Tehran Airport during which explosion of Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 is reported (The file has been handed to the TSN by intelligence agencies, and Iranian officials have confirmed that they have given it to the Ukrainians). This is an important evidence and surely has a high historic and encyclopedic value, however, I am unaware of its copyright status. Who owns the copyright? Can we upload excerpts of the audio under fair use? Pahlevun (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pahlevun:, uploading the audio is probably not necessary or relevant right now, especially when the copyright is uncertain. Wikipedia is not a repository of files, no matter how historic. Wikipedia is also not a publisher of original thought and placing audio files here and then interpreting them ourselves is problematic. It is better to use reliable sources to demonstrate what the audio says. I believe that this has already been added to the relevant articles. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Seal of Mountain View, CA.png

Similar to WP:MCQ#File:CityOfHayward.png queried above, this file also seems like it's a candidate to be converted to {{PD-CAGov}} and then moved to Commons. Any reason why it shouldn't be converted to PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

File:India House collage2.jpg

I would like some opinions on this file's licensing. It's description states that it's a user-created collage which are generally not allowed per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFG. There appears to be some source information provided for each of the individual elements and some if not all of them appear to be either PD or otherwise free images. If that's the case and the only reason this file is licensed as non-free is because the uploader/creator is claiming it's a derivative then that would fail WP:FREER since some could basically the same thing. If, however, any of the individual elements are still protected by copyright, then file would need to be non-free regardless if the uploader/creator gives their consent; in that case, however, the file would still fail WP:NFCC#8 since basically the justification given for the collage seems to be the uploader/creator's WP:OR about the individual images and not any type of sourced critical commentary about them found in reliable sources. Anyway, if the individual elements are all not eligible for copyright, can this file be kept if its licenisng is converted to a free license? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Summit New Jersey, by Edmund B. Raftis

On page 44 of the above book there is a map which I would like to use on the Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet page. It is looking unlikely now that I will get copyright permission. Am I permitted to draw this map myself, as near to the original as possible, and use that instead? If so, do I then become the copyright owner? If I am allowed to do this, do I have to mention where I found the map I copied? Arbil44 (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

My daughter was busy today, so I got on and did it myself. Can I upload it as my own work? This is the caption at the top of the page "Hand drawn replica of a map of the northern end of Chatham, NJ, 1781. This shows the location of Timothy Day’s Tavern, where Charles Asgill was imprisoned in 1782, in relation to the home of Colonel Elias Dayton (just to the south-east). This is where Asgill initially began his time as a prisoner (and was well cared for by Dayton [1]). The map further identifies the principal residents of the town at that time. Source: drawing by Christopher S. Badgley, which appears on p.44 of Summit, New Jersey: From Poverty Hill to the Hill City, Raftis, Edmund B, Published by Great Swamp Press, 1996. Created by Anne Ammundsen, 2020." Does this cover all copyright issues so that I can go ahead? Arbil44 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
If the original drawing is still considered to be under copyright protection, then trying to recreate either as a slavish reproduction (i.e. a simple tracing or photocopy) or as a derivative work (you create your own map based upon someone else's map), I don't think it is going to be considered OK. In the first case, you're bascially just reproducing someone else's copyright work; so, you can't claim it to be your "own work" any more than you'd be able to borrow the book from the library, photocopy all or some of its pages, and then release those copies as your own work. In the second case, you might actually create a "new" work with it's own copyright that you can claim ownership over; however, if your work incoporates elements or is primarily based upon someone else's copyrighted work, Wikipedia would still need that person's permission for such a file to be 100% free since there would basically be two copyrights which need to be considered: the one for your derivative and the one for the original work itself. You might want to look at c:Commons:Map resources and c:Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Maps & satellite imagery for reference, but generally whether you can recreate a map depends upon how old it is or how simple it is. Things such as general shapes (lines, etc.), and text are not usually copyrightable elements; but the way they are combined together or the specifically notated might be considered creative elements eligible for copyright. If the map created by Ammundsen was itself a derivtive work based upon older public domain maps, etc., then you could possible create your own version based upon the same older sources and data; if, however, it was a completely original creation, then I think you're going to need her permission to even upload your "own version" of her map. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, but I am still a little confused. Firstly it isn't really a map but a drawing of where people lived in Chatham in 1781. Secondly I am Anne Ammundsen and I couldn't care less about copyright myself - anyone can use what I have 'created' as it were. Thirdly, yes, I have copied the outlines of where the roads were in the 18th century, the river and the dots representing the houses, but other than that it doesn't look much like the original. Both you and Nthep suggested using a map making facility, but as I say, although I am calling it a map, it is actually only a triangle, representing the roads as they were, and dots for people's houses as it was in 1781. I cannot imagine that the map making facility would work for how it was in 1781 would it? The book was published in 1996 and the drawing was created at the same time as far as I know. I have approached the author of the book (by phone, Facebook and snail mail) without success and it would seem that my requests for permission are being totally ignored. Do I simply ditch my work of yesterday and give up trying to demonstrate where Asgill was imprisoned? If it makes any difference at all, I am only using the top half of the 'map' in the book. Arbil44 (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Anne. You’re making things more confusing by sharing your account/password with another person. Not only is it a violation of the wmf:Terms of Use as explained in WP:SHAREDACCOUNT that could lead to your account being indefinitely blocked per WP:COMPROMISED, it makes it that much harder to try and help you because everyone using this account is going to be assumed to be the same person. Please don’t do that kind of thing any more. If your dad wants to help you with this, please ask him to create his own account.
If you’re the copyright holder of the drawing (i.e. it’s 100% your own work, it wasn’t a work for hire, and it’s not a derivative of anyone else’s work), then you can upload it under a free license as explained in c:COM:L. Since it appears that you’re work has been previously published in someone else’s book (I think that’s what seems to be the case), please refer to c:COM:OTRS for what you are probably going to need to do is email your WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia OTRS for verification purposes. Since no file seems to have been uploaded yet, you should upload it to Wikimedia Commons using c:COM:UPLOAD. Before you do any of that though, you should make sure you understand fully the terms of the license you decided to use because once you upload the file to Commons or Wikipedia under a free license, there are really no take backs.
One last thing is that even if you do upload the file under a free license that is acceptable, there’s no guarantee that it will be able to be used in the article. Like text content, image use is also subject to WP:CONSENSUS and if someone feels that the drawing doesn’t really improve the article, they can remove it. If that happens you’ll be expected to try and sort things out on the article’s talk as explained in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Wikipedia is always looking for quality images to add to its articles so perhaps nobody will challenge its use. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out part of post that had to do with a misreading of a previous post. -- 13:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)]
I'm going to have to read your message again later (I have a hospital appointment to get to right now) because I really don't understand. I'm 75 years old and my 'dad' died 30 years ago - no idea how he is suddenly causing me to be breaking the rules. Nor do I know how on earth I am sharing my account details with anyone else. My Account here is Arbil44 and my name in real life (i.e. in a breathing and living manifestation) is Anne Ammundsen. Frankly I am going to wait for Nthep to come to this party, or tear up my work of yesterday and forget about it all. Life is too short to be threatened with banning when all I am doing is asking for advice. Of course nothing has been uploaded - I still don't feel as though my questions have been answered. My final point would be this. There is an image of Timothy Day's Tavern on the Asgill page - I thought I would be helping by showing just where it was located. I would be astonished to find it removed for reasons that it wasn't 'helpful' information. [User:Arbil44|Arbil44]] (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Anne. My apologies since I think I'm the one who has made things confusing. I read My daughter was busy today, so I got on and did it myself. and for some crazy boneheaded reason (I'm going to say too much caffeine) I thought that meant your "dad" had used your account to make that post. Anyway, I've stricken that part from my last post. One thing you can clarify would be why you wrote It is looking unlikely now that I will get copyright permission in your very first post. Did you create the drawing or did Christopher S. Badgley create it? If you're the original creator of the drawing and just gave Badgley or someone else permission to use it without transferring your copyright to them, then you still hold the copyright on the drawing and can uploaded it as your "own work". On the other hand, if you didn't create the drawing or did but transferred your copyright over it to someone else, then you cannot upload the file without the consent of that person. If you just happened to see the drawing in a book you were reading and thought it would be a good thing to add to Wikipedia, then I'm afraid that I don't think you can do that as well without the permission of the copyright holder, even if you were to create your own version of the drawing based on the original and upload that instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it was pretty astonishing to be told I would be banned because my late father was using my account! The English language can be hard to decipher at times, I know! The way forward would appear to be either (a) create a pin-push map myself, which would be beyond my IT capabilities, or (b) get copyright permission. The author, Raftis, has been approached by telephone, Facebook, email and snail mail. He is ignoring me. I have little hope of ever getting permission. However, I have now tracked down the artist who created the map/sketch. I have just telephoned him in Summit NJ (I'm in the UK) and tried his mobile and his landline with no success. No idea if I will ever get any kind of response, but I will continue to try. So, it is all looking pretty bleak really. I copied his map/sketch and the end result looks quite different. However, the 3 roads and 20 or-so dots (representing the only houses existing in Chatham NJ in 1781) have been copied by me from his work, and it looks like this will be unacceptable. I am talking to Nthep now and it is best the conversation progresses here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sir_Charles_Asgill,_2nd_Baronet#Summit_New_Jersey%2C_by_Edmund_B._Raftis Arbil44 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Photograph of Archibald Leitch

Hello, a question. This is a photograph of Sir Archibald Leitch, Scottish architect dead in 1939. This photograph is likely to have been taken in the late 1910s - early 1920s in Britain, but I don't know its status now (it was uploaded on 2010 here). Since I wished to use it on Commons, is there any expert of UK copyright that can help clarifying its status? -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 18:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Blackcat, it looks like the editor who uploaded the image, TheBigJagielka, is still editing Wikipedia. Have you tried asking them whether they might have further information on the image's age and provenance? If they could give more detail as to that, it would be very helpful in determining what its current status is. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade:, thanks, meanwhile I had asked the same question on Commons and it seems that it's a 1924 photograph (source: The Scotsman) which author is unnamed, thus reasonably free from copyright both in the U.K. and in the USA -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 09:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

File:CityOfHayward.png

This file seems like it would be a OK to convert to {{PD-CAGov}} based upon some of the files found in c:Category:Seals of municipalities in California. Any reason why it needs to be non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

This also seems to me like it's on the threshold of originality (although perhaps a court might decide it is on the 'original' side). Arlo James Barnes 19:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Fort Lauderdale CF logo.png

Why does the bot keep removing the image from Fort Lauderdale CF? Nehme1499 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Solved. Nehme1499 (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FOOTY#National team logo in infobox

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FOOTY#National team logo in infobox. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

21 Mansel Family Letters written to Herbert Mansel between 1819-1835

On 8 January I asked a subsidiary question here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Ann_Mansel#The_21_family_letters_written_to_Herbert_Mansel_by_members_of_his_family I have now done the preparatory work and would like to know if I can make a new PDF document with all 21 letters, to be linked to the Mary Ann Mansel and General Robert Manners pages? 2 of the letters (with copyright permission) are already linked as a PDF to Wikipedia. Of the remaining, 4 I have paraphrased ready for inclusion and the other 15 letter-writers have no living descendants to obtain copyright permission from. May I go ahead and finish this job now? Arbil44 (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

So, Arbil44, a couple of things. First off, just having no living descendants doesn't mean the copyright vanishes. It may be rather difficult to own it, but someone does. (This is a well-known problem, and occurs frequently enough to have a name, an orphan work). But all the same, if the material still is copyrighted, it remains so even if for you to track down who holds the copyright is difficult or impossible. In that case, you will not be able to use them until they become old enough to fall into the public domain. The only exception would be if you're able to use them as nonfree media, but Wikipedia's criteria for when that is allowed is deliberately very restrictive. In the case of primary sources such as letters, they can generally be summarized and cited, if necessary for the article, rather than images of them being posted, so they would normally fail NFCC criteria #1 and #8. The orphan work problem is indeed a pain in the ass, but as it stands the law does allow for it to happen, and there's nothing much we can do about it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I asked permission to link and was given permission by Nthep. The final letter was written in 1835 - surely that is outside copyright isn't it? There simply isn't anyone out there who is going to be anything but delighted that they are included. Alternatively, are you saying that I can paraphrase the other 15 letters, all of which have no living descendants? As for Mary Ann's post script of a couple of sentences - well, I am her descendant and I give permission. There is absolutely nothing controversial in the letters - simply siblings chatting to one another. Please would Nthep, who gave me permission, comment here? We were discussing all this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Ann_Mansel#The_21_family_letters_written_to_Herbert_Mansel_by_members_of_his_family Arbil44 (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I wish you'd stop saying I gave permission, I offered advice which was to track down the heirs as you have done and then if you think you have permission from the survivors who may have inherited the copyright to publish, to do so. Nthep (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I told you that there are no descendants for 15 of the letters and you joked about Kind Hearts and Coronets. You said that if I was sure there were no descendants then it was OK. There are no descendants so how do I find heirs if there is nobody alive? You didn't say I had to do that. Arbil44 (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Would the following be a compromise situation? What about something along the lines of "If anyone would like a copy of 21 letters written between the Mansel siblings, and others, between 1819-1835, please request them from .......@........."? If that was in external links would it be acceptable? Arbil44 (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I have devoted months of my life to this subject and on the strength of Nthep's comment here: @Arbil44: I have to commend your tenacity in chasing all this down and as you list various dead ends I am reminded of the scenes in Kind Hearts and Coronets where Louis Manzzini keeps crossing names of the D'Ascoyne family off a tree as he either offs them or they die naturally. Without conducting a similar exercise (crossing off not killing!) it looks like you have established that the heirs are all extinct or you have permission from the ones that are left. I can only say that if you are confident that surviving heirs have agreed to publication then publish. Nthep (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC) I linked the Mansel letters, since no previous mention was made of orphan works. Because of the time and effort I have put into all of this, along with a vast array of other issues elsewhere on Wikipedia (it's been full-time work for six months now), my mental health is suffering badly. My 80-year old husband and I have had several operations in that time as well. I must now leave Wikipedia as soon as I possibly can - and this is currently holding me up. Could I please have a response as to what alternatives may be available to me, given that the last letter was written 185 years ago? The letters consist of trivia and there are no living descendants of 15 of the letter-writers. 2 letters have copyright permission - and 4 letters have been paraphrased. So, what do I do now? Paraphrase 15 more letters, some of which are very long? Or let people know I can provide a pdf on request? Or do the circumstances really warrant any further action and I be permitted to leave things as they are? Arbil44 (talk) 07:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Wait, Arbil44, the last letter was written in 1835? I apparently missed that, but in that case, any copyright has long since expired. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Searphimblade: the copyright is the crux of this matter, as unpublished non-photographic works these letters are still in copyright in the UK and will remain so until 2039. All the discussions I have had with Arbil44 have been about tracing the surviving heirs and getting permission to publish. Nthep (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The dates are in large font in the title. This, and dramas in two other areas, (all hitting me at once and all emanating from Wikipedians not reading a word I say) eventually tipped me over the edge. So I finally left Wikipedia yesterday. You have all lost a decent and trustworthy member. Arbil44 (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

PD-logo?

File:Family Radio 2017 logo.svg looks like it's {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United States, but the cross-imagery created between the "F" and "R" might just be enough to be considered copyrightable. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Given that we ignore the hidden arrow of Fedex, same would apply here, and this would be PD-logo as an American company. --Masem (t) 02:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. I forgot about the FedEx logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

want to upload image

There is a page on a movie (Devi (2020 film)), it has a first look poster but I wanted to know if the first look poster in the REF can be uploaded so it can be put on the page of the movie. I[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matahsart (talk • contribs) 21:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.instagram.com/p/B7YDHrcn9qM/?igshid=1t8gwovpqx38z

Can I use a logo of an organization on its wikipedia page?

Dear Wikipedia,

Can I use one of the logos for the SCANZ organization available under its website in the resources section (https://scanz.iucr.org/#resources --> https://scanz.iucr.org/__data/assets/file/0019/144064/SCANZ-logo-pack.zip) on its own wikipedia webpage (That I am building but it is still a draft here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Society_of_Crystallographers_in_Australia_and_New_Zealand )

Kind regards,

Aragaod (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aragaod. Copyrighted logos generally can be uploaded as non-free content and used per item 2 of WP:NFCI as long as there's no freely licensed equivalent image available, the logo has been officially published somewhere by the copyright holder, and it also satisfies the other eight non-free content use criteria. Generally means that it's OK if the logo can be found on some official website of the relevant company/organization and it is intended to be used for primary identification purposes either in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the company/organization in question. Other types of non-free uses or uses in other articles tends to be harder to justify; for example, like explained here. Another thing about non-free content is that it cannot be used in drafts per WP:NFCC#9 and WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts; so, you should wait until the draft you're working on has been approved before trying to add any non-free files to it; if you don't, they will only be removed and then perhaps deleted as orphaned non-free files.
In some cases, however, a logo might actually be either too simple to eligible for copyright protection or too old for copyright protection depending upon its country of origin. Such files can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You can find out some more general information about logos at WP:LOGO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Cheers Marchjuly. much appreciated David Aragao (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Letter from the photographer sent to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org

She states "do hereby release and grant permission...including advertising, promotions and internet use."

Azurerae (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Azurerae. Ideally the copyright holder should send a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia OTRS. I don't think OTRS is really going to accept a forwarded email from you, and verbal CONSENT is not really sufficient. Another option might be like was is explained in c:COM:OTRS#When contacting OTRS is unnecessary, but that would involve the actual copyright holder uploading the image or clearly stating on some external website that the file is being released under one of these free licenses. One thing the copyright holder should understand is that once their work has been released under a free license is that the license cannot really be revoked and that the copyright holder cannot really control how their work is going to be used. They can establish some basic conditions, like requiring attribution, but they can really stop someone complying with the licenses terms from reusing their work in a way that they might not like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, it was actually a signed letter. Permissions emailed me back about it and I forwarded the template to the proper party. --Azurerae (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Oliver LaGrone wiki images

I need help to understand myself, and likely to explain to two external parties, the process that should be followed to add three digital images to my Oliver LaGrone wiki. Most basically, I need to know how non-free images can be used on Wikipedia and, if so, what the specifics of that process are.

1. From the Cranbrook Archives--I have paid for permission to use an image from the Cranbrook Academy of Art of Oliver LaGrone, the first African-American student there. It is a 72 dpi file, recommended for use under a CC BY NC ND license. "Orphaned non-free image File:C. Oliver LaGrone working on a sculpture, 1942. Courtesy Cranbrook Archive neg. 1997-01 Env1 5873-2.jpg", retrieved from "https://en.wkipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cordell_Affeldt&oldid=940632266" Feb 12 and 13, 2020

I do not understand how to accurately complete the required form after uploading the image, so that the permission to use the image is accurately communicated. Or do I somehow get image permission first and then upload to the article? Cranbrook has recommended that I use the non-commercial, no-derivatives license--is this a "non-free" use? Does Cranbrook have to complete the form? Does Cranbrook have to respond in some other way to Wikipedia? Should I be uploading to Wikimedia instead? Any and all guidance will be much appreciated, because I'm stuck even after reading and re-reading all the pertinent guidelines on Wikipedia that I can find.

2. Two photos taken by a volunteer photographer, whose co-executors want the images used under a CC BY NC ND license--The concern is not opening the images to use for profit or denigration. One photo shows LaGrone teaching; the other is a photo portrait. Do the co-executors have to communicate directly with Wikipedia? or with Wikimedia? How do two persons communicate regarding each of the two digital photos? Do I upload the photos first (where?), then indicate that their permission is coming to that location? Again, I dearly appreciate specific guidance because what I've tried has not worked.


Oliver LaGrone is deceased. His family cannot be reached. It is my understanding that therefore no other images of his sculptures can be used by Wikipedia. Is this accurate? Cordell Affeldt (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem I see is that Oliver LaGrone already has images both of him and his work. So WP:NFCC#1 is a problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Cordell Affeldt. What do you mean by my Oliver LaGrone wiki? Do you mean the Wikipedia article Oliver LaGrone or do you mean you've created your own Wikipedia-like website about Oliver Lagrone? Assuming that you mean the Wikipedia article about Lagrone, then any images you upload and try to use in articles are going to need to satisfy Wikipedia:Image use policy; since, as Jo-Jo Eumerus has pointed out above, there exist freely licensed images of both Lagrone and his work, it's going to really quite hard to justify the use of any non-free images per non-free content use criterion #1. If, however, you can find some freely licensed images of either LaGrone or his work that meets c:Commons:Licensing, you can upload them to Wikimedia Commons and then add them to the article.
Anyway, it does look that a file you uploaded was deleted per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 February 12#File:C. Oliver LaGrone working on a sculpture, 1942. Courtesy Cranbrook Archive neg. 1997-01 Env1 5873-2.jpg. If you're not sure why that file ended up deleted, you could ask the the administrator who deleted it for clarification. His name is Fastily and you can leave a message for him at User talk:Fastily. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyrights

I uploaded a snapshot of a pamphlet at File:A pamphlet offering money to Muslims at different rates for victimizing girls of different Hindu castes for Love Jihad.jpeg

Please let me know how I can avoid it's deletion from Wikipedia. The pamphlet is still with me!—Spasiba5 (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Spasiba5:You need to explain the copyright status of the pamphlet. Just because you own a copy does not mean you own the copyright; that belongs to whoever authored the pamphlet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Are all of the flags at List of fictional countries really free/public domain?

Maybe my understanding of how threshold of originality works is lacking but some of these feel really elaborate. I get that most/all of them have been reproduced by hand in Photoshop or whatever but even so, that doesn't invalidate the original copyright as long as the flag meets the threshold of originality, right? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of these look copyrighted. Also, in a number of cases the files are under some CC licence that was added by the uploader but there is no evidence that the uploader has the right of licencing them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
What's the remedy here? Nom for deletion on Commons? Also are any of them below the threshold of originality that I shouldn't nominate in your opinion? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
If the files are from Commons and you think they don't meet c:COM:L, then you'd have to resolve them on Commons. You could remove them from the article, but the file would still remain on Commons. If you can find something establishing that the file is a clear copyvio, etc., you could tag it for deletion per c:COM:CSD; if you're not sure, i.e. claiming c:COM:PCP, then c:COM:DR might be a better option. One thing you need to be careful of is that WP:TOO tends to vary, sometimes quite a lot, by country; so, when it comes to Commons, a file needs to be below the TOO for both the US and its country of origin. Since these are "fictional" countries, there's really no country of origin per se, but the flags themselves might be derivative works containing various elements and tracking down the origin of these might be quite a task. c:COM:TOO United States is quite high in comparison to some other countries, which means a lot of logos which look complex might be actually be OK for the US; in the same way, individual elements which look complex might be OK in the US, but combining them together in a certain way might create a new copyright as a derivative work. The latter case would most likely be OK to claim as "own work" and release under an acceptable CC license. If you can find any of these images, even in different formats,are being used online or in other publications prior to their upload to Commons and confirm that these prior uses don't indicate they were previous released under an acceptable license for Commons, then a good case might be able to be made for deletion; otherwise, it might be a good idea to ask first at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Axem Titanium and Marchjuly: a few pointers:
  1. Of course these works have a country of origin. If a German living in Germany draws a fictional flag for his country "Bieristan", the country of origin is Germany, not "Bieristan".
  2. If a file looks like it going to be deleted on Commons because of a low threshold of originality in the source country, it can be re-uploaded here on English Wikipedia as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}.
Cheers – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:31, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Of course, you’re right the country of origin, but it seems quite hard to determine where the uploader/creator of the image is living unless they reveal that information themselves. Even if they do say they’re living in a certain country, it would be pretty hard to verify such a thing; so, basically you have to be really willing to assume good faith or maybe ask they email OTRS. Another thing you might need to be careful of is WP:OUTING, which means you can really go around connecting accounts to real people, but rather have to let them “self-out” themselves if they want. “PD-ineligible-USonly” is an option if the flag is PD in the US. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Surely both WP:AFG and Commons:COM:Copyright rules#Dealing with uncertainty apply. Assume what's likely (and certainly what users tell us), unless there is some evidence to the contrary. We have 26 million files in c:Category:Self-published work alone (excluding the PD-simple's which this also concerns), almost every other file on Commons, and we certainly aren't going to OTRS the lot of them and ask people to send in scans of their passport. Everyone uploading has already agreed to c:COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law, but there is a reason why Commons or WP doesn't require people to state or prove their nationality or residence. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
My prior post made it seem as if I think AGF is a bad idea in all cases like this, but that’s not exactly what I was trying to say. I agree it’s OK to AGF, which’s means a CC license is fine. The only times AGF would probably not be wise would be in the clear case of a derivative work (like Masem mentions below) or the same exact image can be found used online or in some publication prior to its upload to Commons. In cases like those, anything which is borderline per the TOO might be a good candidate for OTRS verification. Other factors, such as the uploader’s upload history, probably would also be worth consideration. If it’s the only file uploaded by a user, then giving them the benefit of the doubt seems fine. If, on the other hand, their user talk page is filled with warnings or DR notifications, then perhaps a little more scrutiny is warranted. —- 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
An issue at play here is if a visual representation of the flag had existed from the creator of the work containing the fictional country before, as that would make any image a derivative work if the original flag image was copyrightable, and to that end, that would be determined based on where the original creative work was made (not the editor that made the graphics at common). So for example, the one for Arstotzka, from the game Papers, Please is presented in game and thus is a creative product of Lucas Pope who we know has been living in Japan for many years, and not to editor ShadowOfMars whomever they are. We turn to TOO and per c:COM:TOO Japan I would argue that it well beyond the threshold described so it cannot be at commons. Further it is really pushing at the bounds of "simple text and graphics" that the US TOO would allow for (there's no hard line, but for me, if it takes more than 5 or 6 obvious simple polygons to construct and clearly trying to communicate a different shape like the bird here, you've past the US TOO), and adding that it is a derivative work from a copyright game, this is really not an image we can use as PD-USonly here.
I don't know off hand if there are cases of flags on this list that are like heraldry, which are cases of a flag only being described by a specific text description and being brought to light by the editor creating the image. Specifically with heraldry like coats of arms, this would be acceptable (this is a very-much allowed free image area). But if it was a case of just a passage "Appletopia's flag was bright red apple on a green background" and translated by the editor to a visual shape, that would be reasonable too. This part is a bit more complex. --Masem (t) 15:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: What do you think about the entry for “Bowser’s Kingdom”. I’m not too familiar with the “Super Mario” games, but any imagery appearing in those games has a good chance of being protected. —- Marchjuly (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Same situation: the icon of Bowser is too detailed as to be uncopyrightable in Japan or the US, and as a derivative work, can't be a free image. That sounds likes its going to be a persistent issue on this list. --Masem (t) 16:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I tagged a bunch of them on Commons. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Ontario Provincial Police logo.png

File was originally uploaded as non-free content, but it's licensing was recently changed to {{PD-Canada}} by TrailBlzr based upon a claim that the file was first published over 50 years ago. No information beyond an edit summary, however, has been provided to show that this is indeed the case; moreover, simply being "PD-Canada" doesn't automatically make the file PD in the United States as well (as is seen at the bottom of the "PD-Canada" license). There are three conditions which need to be met for this file to also be considered PD in the US:

  1. if it entered the public domain in Canada prior to 1996, or
  2. when, after that date, its copyright term expires in accordance with U.S. law.
  3. if it was subject to Crown Copyright and published before 1970.

If it can be shown that these conditions are met then the file should be moved to Commons because it would clearly be PD in both Canada and the US. On the other hand if it's not PD in both countries, then it needs to remained licensed as non-free content for use on Wikipedia.

If this image is PD both in Canada and the US, then the licensing of File:OPP Crest.jpg should also be re-assessed as well for the same reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, no source seems to have ever been provided for either of the aforementioned files as part of their respective non-free use rationales, and the official website listed in Ontario Provincial Police is coming up as a 404 error. The OPP does seem to have a Twitter account, but I'm not finding either image being used there. So, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to track down when either file was first published, etc. to verify that they do qualify as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Tottenham Hotspur.svg

I was passed on the image awhile back directly from an official at Tottenham Hotspur football club for use on wikipedia and I got his email in my inbox. I wasn't sure, but should the information be updated in the image that we were given permission for it's use on wikipedia? Govvy (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, Unless the copyright holder, who may be the designer and not the club, is prepared to release the image under a free licence, then as it is now it is being used as an acceptable non-free image it complies with WP:NFCC policy. Otherwise the copyright holder must release it under a free licence that anyone can use and it would be available to all wikis from the wikimedia commons. Wikipedia use alone is not sufficient. ww2censor (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
​ If the copyright holder or someone representing the copyright owner wants to give their WP:CONSENT and agree for the file to uploaded and used in the Wikipedia articles about the team, there are a couple of things they can do as explained in c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. Basically, the only free licenses that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) accepts are ones pretty much allow the uploaded content to downloaded/reused by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime for any purpose (including commercial or derivative use); so, any license that states "non-commercial use only", "Wikipedia use only", etc. is not going to be considered sufficient per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files. Moreover, once a file has been released under such a license, the license can't be revoked even if the copyright holder changes their mind at a later date; the file may end up being deleted from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, but anyone who downloaded the file and is using in accordance with the terms of the original license can continue to do so and any issues the copyright holder has with that will need to be resolved outside of Wikipedia.
Releasing a logo a free license doesn't mean that the copyright holder is transferring copyright ownership over the logo to Wikipedia or anyone else; it just means that the copyright holder is just making available a particular version (of its choosing) of the logo freely available for others to use. Even so, many copyright holders are obviously quite reluctant to do this because their organization's branding has a great deal of commercial value to them; so, for this reason, certain types of copyrighted content is allowed to be uploaded and used in Wikipedia articles in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. This is because the WMF acknowledges that some concept of fair use/fair dealing is followed by many countries; therefore, the WMF establish its "Exemption Doctrine Policy" per a WMF resolution that gives individual Wikipedia projects the option of developing policies and guidelines regarding the use of fair use content; some like English Wikipedia do, but many others do not. English Wikipedia does recognize fair use, but has opted to make its policy much more restrictive than US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure the image below is kosher to use but am not sure exactly how to specify the copyright license. It's a mugshot from the Kauai PD posted at the bottom of this long post on their Facebook page. I know anything posted on FB is generally not considered a reliable source, but this mug shot has been used by several news services:

Any assistance in specifying the copyright license information correctly would be appreciated. Thanks!

--В²C ☎ 16:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

File:LoriVallowMugShot20200220.jpeg

@Born2cycle: All files need to be provided with information about their copyright status and a copyright license per WP:IUP#RI. Being widely used or publicly available doesn't mean a photo, etc. falls within the public domain, and anything that is not released under a free license should be assumed to be copyrighted. Official booking photos from US government agencies like the FBI are most likely going to be considered public domain (i.e. not subject to copyright protection) per WP:PD#US government works, but those released by sub-national law enforcement agencies such as a local police department are likely going to be protected by copyright. There are some states like California and Florida where works created by state employees as part of their official duties are considered to be public domain, but not all states do this. Most major cities also don't such a thing. So, basically, unless you can find a official photo on some official Kauai PD website which clearly states the file has been released under a free license or into the public domain, you probably should assume that it's copyrighted.
File:LoriVallowMugShot20200220.jpeg was deleted per WP:F4, which means it was deleted because it either had no source information, no copyright license, or no source information and no copyright license. If you just uploaded the file and didn't provide any of these things, then the file was going to end up deleted regardless. If you now have such information available, then explain this to the administrator who deleted the file and they will perhaps restore it. You could also ask for assistance at WP:REFUND.
If the file is copyrighted, then it might still be possible to upload and use as non-free content; however, non-free content use is not considered automatic and there are ten specific criteria which need to be met. This might be hard to do if you're intending to simply add the file to Disappearance of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow#Lori Vallow because non-free content is not generally allowed for such types of uses; moreover, there might also be WP:BLP issues per WP:MUG. So, once the copyright license and source issue has been resolved, you might want to ask about this at WP:BLPN to make sure there are no other problems. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
My research indicates that the copyright to such images is generally owned by the public. That's not good enough? That means WE own it. That means anyone who uses it owns it. Nobody is getting sued. BLP issues aside, what exactly is the copyright issue? --В²C ☎ 01:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "your research" entails, but I don't think copyright law (at least not in the US) works that way. I'm not sure what makes you think that "we" own images posted on local governmental websites. Is there something in Hawaiian law which specifically states that images posted on any state/local government agency websites are the property of the residents of Hawaii or anyone other than the government agency itself?
Generally, the person taking a photo is considered to be the copyright holder. So, if you take a photo and post it somewhere online so that others can enjoy it, you're still the copyright holder of the photo and others cannot reuse it without your explicit consent, except perhaps under a claim of fair use perhaps. So, if an employee of the the Kauai PD took the photo as part of their official duties (i.e. a work-for-hire type of thing), then the copyright is most likely help by the Kauai PD. Others like newspapers, etc. may be using the photo as fair use, but that doesn't mean copyright ownership has been transferred to them. Wikipedia does allow copyrighted content to be uploaded as non-free content, which is based upon fair use but more restrictive; non-free content, however, is still considered protected by copyright.
Regardless, if you upload a file to Wikipedia you need to provide some information about it's source and provide a copyright license; not providing either doesn't comply with Wikipedia's image use policy, which means the file can be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2020/February&oldid=1078907552"