Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2022/March

Photos produced by the Louisiana state government

I wanted to add a more recent photo of Cleo Fields, a state senator in Louisiana. (The current photo is from his time in Congress more than 30 years ago.) I was going to add his official photo on the Louisiana Senate website, but I saw that copyright issues were less clear for state governments than for the U.S. federal government. Unfortunately, the Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States page doesn't mention Louisiana. Does anyone know if a Louisiana state senator's directory photo is "free" in Wikipedia terms? Flaggingwill (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, California and Florida are the only states in which content created by state employees as part of their official duties is legally within the public domain. There isn't a lot about Louisiana here, but it is listed as a "red" state on that website which means that "documents are presumptively copyrightable". There's also nothing about Louisiana in Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States, but that page might not be totally accurate. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to simply email the Louisiana State Senate and ask. I couldn't find anything about copyright on the body's official website, but there is an email address listed at the bottom. There's also no copyright notice on their website (or a few other Louisiana government related websites that I checked) that I could find, but that doesn't mean the content is public domain since copyright notices are no longer legally required (I believe) for content to be considered protected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Canadian government agency copyright

I uploaded File:Neighbours 1952 cover.jpg some time ago. The file is owned by the National Film Board of Canada, a government agency of Canada. Would it fall under Crown copyright? Newfiebluejay (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Doodle created by a minor for identification purposes

Heyo, I tried to upload a doodle of my fursona that the artist has given me permission to use for signatures across wikis via Discord PMs. The artist, however, is a minor from the Philippines and has explicitly stated that all of their work cannot be minted as an NFT regardless of whether it is for commercial or non-commercial purposes. What is a more appropriate license for me to use? RockfordRoe (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi RockfordRoe. Unless the copyright holder (or their legal guardian perhaps) agree to give their WP:CONSENT (or c:COM:CONSENT) for their work to be uploaded to Wikipedia (or Wikimedia Commons), there's really no license that you can use that would make the file OK to use on Wikipedia. Basically, the copyright holder needs to agree to allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime and use for any purpose (including commerical and derivative use); in other words, there's no license that Wikipedia would accept that would limit the use of the work to only you or to only Wikipedia. The copyright holder would still retain their copyright over the work, but others would be able to use the version of it that is uploaded pretty much anyway they want without needing permission as long as they complied with the terms of the license it has been released under. You can find out some more about this in c:Commons:Licensing since most of what's written there also applies to English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Tamla-Motown logo

I recently uploaded File:Tamla Motown logo variant A.webp as "PD-ineligible-USonly". Is the tag correct, or is the logo completely non-free? --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Assuming that the country of origin is the UK, then "PD-ineligible-USonly" is probably OK. Other countries may have a TOO closer the the US which might mean the file could be OK for Commons as "PD-logo". Copyright questions aside, the file doesn't really add much contextually to the article it's being used in and would most certainly not pass (at least in my opinion) WP:NFCC#8 if the file needs to be treated as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Cyprus archive question

Hi! I am updating the PEKA (Political Committee of the Cypriot Struggle) page and would like to include a leaflet from the Cyprus State Archives that was published and translated by the BBC. I'm wondering if the picture is fair use because it is from an archive. I'm not super familiar with copyright for images so I wanted to check - in general I only ever use images from Wikicommons. The image is below, I can also provide the article link if that would be helpful. Also, if it matters, the leaflet is dated to 1957. Thank you for your help!! Kazamzam (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC) http://www7.bbk.ac.uk/hiddenpersuaders/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/PEKA-leaflet-.jpg

Talk:Asquith_Xavier#Request_for_comment_on_images_in_this_article

If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

File:MitchellReportCover.jpg

This cover is marked as being under fair use, but it appears to be too simple for copyright. The only significant thing on it is the title, which is still simple text - should it be copyrighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfiebluejay (talk • contribs) 23:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems like it would be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:BOOK and should be OK to relicense as {{PD-Text}}, but you might want to ask about that at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright because that's where the file should really be if it is. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The cover image consists of simple text with no creative elements. I cannot possibly see how it meets the Threshold of originality, and is therefore not a copyrighted image. Cullen328 (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Images from North Korea

I've got this picture here, and I have no clue what its copyright status is or even if a journalist took it; it's only been featured in random military blogs with no sourcing, names, or years attached. Does the North Korean government have copyright rights to images and videos they take? I highly doubt this military blog was the original taker of this photo, but they don't cite their sources. https://militarywatchmagazine.com/m/articles/2019/05/12/article_5cd873213a4195_13457803.jpg https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/pokpung-ho-korea-primary-tank MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

MLGDatBoi1738: Based on the image source it might be a 2019 image. Our commons copyright database says that in general North Korean works are copyright for 50 years from publication per c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/North_Korea or 50 years pma. Sorry but it looks like you are out of luck on this one. ww2censor (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So how were other websites etc able to use this image? Can I email the North Korean government or something to ask for permission to use this image? MLGDatBoi1738 (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Other websites might be using the photo under a claim of fair use or fair dealing, or they simply might not care about whether the images are copyrighted or whether using them might lead to problems. You would need probably need to contact the website to find out what where they get their images from or what their use policy if there's no information about it specifically on the website. As for emailing the North Korean Government, I guess anything is possible and you could try using WP:PERMISSION as a guide, but I'm not sure how you would go about doing that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

MLGDatBoi1738, you are free to try to convince the North Korean government to freely license an image, but this has been tried before without success. For six or seven years, Wikipedia editors tried to convince North Korea to release just one freely licensed photo of Kim Jong-un but all those efforts were unsuccessful. It was not until 2018-2019 when the Korean leader started summit meetings with leaders of other countries that the first freely licensed photos of Kim Jong-un started to appear, and they did not come from the DPRK. Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi - a bot is reverting my change for an image already accepted on a different page

Hi,

I tried to link to the image: ((File:Alto Neptune Filemanager.gif|thumb|The Alto Neptune file manager program)) on the page [File manager]. However, the JJMC89 bot says it is a copyright violation. This strikes me as odd given that the image is already linked to on the [Xerox Alto] page. I just used the link from there. I didn't upload this image.

I think it is a significant historical note to present on the [File manager] page.

Can someone help me proceed with how to overcome this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drudru (talk • contribs)

Hi there. The reason that File:Alto Neptune Filemanager.gif can be used on the Xerox Alto page is because there is a fair use rationale, explaining why the image could be used on that page even though it is copyrighted and not under a Creative Commons license. In order to use it on another article, you would have to add a new fair use rationale for the new article. ... discospinster _talk 19:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Drudu: The bot did not state the file was removed because it was a copyright violation; the edit summary it left stated the file was removed for being a "WP:NFCC violation". Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive that the US's policy on fair use as explained here and there are ten specific criteria that need to be met for each use of non-free content. The bot removed the file because it's use in the "File manager" article failed criterion #10c, and adding a non-free use rationale to the file's page for that particular use should stop the bot; however, adding a missing rationale doesn't automatically make a non-free use valid as explained here and the file's use could still be challenged for other reasons. Generally, it can be quite hard to justify a file's non-free use in more general broader in-scope types of articles like "File manager" when the file is being used in more specific articles like Xerox Alto because of item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. Often a link to the more specific article where the image can be seen is deemed to be sufficient and any additional uses in more general articles are considered to be WP:DECORATIVE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Discospinster - thanks for you help :-)

@Marchjuly

Thanks for this. I think (and I hope others will come to agree), that neptune was a significant historical instance of a 2-pane file manager. It establishes prior art of a gui version that wasn't available until the mid 1980s.

(as a side note, I'm pretty impressed with the system on this page.) Drudru (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Discospinster

BTW - do I need to remove this section? How does this get cleaned up? Drudru (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean your question? It eventually gets archived. ... discospinster _talk 15:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

File:PlayStation colour logo.png

Recently in a featured article nomination, this file replaced a public domain file on PlayStation (console). The logo was thought be creative enough for copyright protection. Is it? The public domain file is File:Playstation logo colour.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfiebluejay (talk • contribs) 12:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Uploading artist image to artist page with permission of artist

Hi there

Sorry I'm a bit lost trying to upload an image. The image was created of Victor Hugo(Salsa), Victor owns the copyright, he's my husband and I'm creating this page for him. I don't know how to proceed wih the upload and work through the error messages.

Many thanks in anticipation Saxon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxon RIvas (talk • contribs) 08:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Saxon RIvas. There are actually two issues in play here: one to do with images and one to do with the article you're trying to create. Both issues aren't really related to one another, but they are both things you should try and resolve before trying to upload any more images or create an article about your husband.

With respect to the images you're trying to upload, if you're able to get the c:COM:CONSENT of the copyright holder of the image, you can upload the file to Wikimedia Commons. Please understand though that it's the person who creates the image in question who is generally considered the copyright holder. So, in the case of a photo, it's typically the photographer who takes the photo (not the subject of the photo) who is considered to be the copyright holder. So, if the photo is of your husband, then he would not really be the copyright holder of it unless it was considered to be a work for hire or the person who actually did take the photo transferred their copyright ownership to him. If it's a photo of something your husband created (e.g. a painting or some other work of art), then your husband would be the copyright holder of the work he created that was photographed, but he still wouldn't be the copyright holder of the actual photo itself. You can find out more about these things in c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:Own work.

With respect to the article you're trying to create, you would be considered by Wikipedia to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest because you're trying to create content about your husband. Wikipedia doesn't prohibit conflict of interest editing, but it does highly discourage it because it can sometimes lead to serious problems and misunderstandings. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing because they explain some things, including some possibly negative things, about Wikipedia that you and your husband might not know about and they might help you decide whether a Wikipedia article is really a good idea. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response, I need to look at it all closely. I realised that there were issues him being my husband, and for this reason I have kept everything very factual, no opinions and referencing wherever possible as there is a lot on record. But I will look at the references and learn as much as I can; we have some in house images which can be used. Many thanks again for taking the time to respond, had a a bit of a domestic hiccup so sorry for the delay in reading this and getting back, kindest regards Saxon RIvas (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Early 1950s photograph

I'm looking to illustrate an article about a dog that lived 1946-1953. Would images from contemporary newspapers fall under {{PD-US-no notice}}? (I'm specifically looking at this or the cleaner version here.) If not, what's my best path towards getting an image I can use? Rusalkii (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that only advertisements appearing in print publications during that time period were required to have individual copyright notices; in other words, photos appearing in newspaper articles were covered by the copyright notice for the paper as a whole and thus might still be protected. (This link might be helpful.) The photo might also not have originated with a paper since many papers around that time seem to get some of their content from wire services or other third-parties. Simply using the photo in one of its stories wouldn't automatically make a paper the copyright holder if the photo wasn't a work for hire or it came from somewhere else. It might be better to see if you can find another photo of the dog for which the provenance can be better established. If you can figure out who took the photo, when they took it and when it was first published, then it might be easier to assess its copyright status. I don't think such things can be clearly assessed from the two links you've provided above, but others might feel differently. One other possibility might be to upload a photo of the dog as non-free content; for example, if the photo was being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the dog itself, then such a use might be considered equivalent to non-free photos used for primary identification purposes of deceased individuals. It would still need to be demonstrated that the photo satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria, but that might be a possibility. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Providence Friars Basketball Logo

User:JJMC89 bot Please stop removing the Providence Friars logo. This logo meets all 10 necessary requirements of fair use rationale. Because of your constant removal, they are currently the only Division 1 basketball team without a logo. Why would every other team be able to use an official logo but not the Providence Friars? Please stop removing this logo File:Providence Friars logo.svg on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providence_Friars_men%27s_basketball, as you have no reason to do so. Racheltherachel01283 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Racheltherachel01283

@Racheltherachel01283: Not entirely true. In line with other men's college basketball team articles, which use free wordmark logos, I have added File:Providence Friars P script logo.gif to the infobox. Further, since the wordmark serves this purpose, the use of the non-free athletic logo is not justified. Finally, as is the case across all other Division I teams, non-free logos are only used on the main athletics articles. —C.Fred (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Just going to add that the a separate specific non-free use rationale is required for each use of non-free content as epxlained in non-free content use criterion #10c and WP:NFC#Implementation, and this is why the bot kept removing the file. Many editors (especially new editors) misunderstand this and mistakenly assume than one non-free use rationale covers all uses of a file. Adding the missing rationale to a file's page will stop the bot from removing the file, but the rationale needs to be valid and may fail a subsequent human review of the additional use. As C.Fred points out above, the use of university mascot logos tends to be limited to primary articles about a university's athletic program/teams (like Providence Friars), but the general consensus is that such use is not considered acceptable for identification purposes in individual team or individual season articles per items 14 and items 17 of WP:NFC#UUI, except when the logo itself is specific to an individual team or season. For individual teams articles, a wordmark logo is typically considered sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. Finally, edit warring of any kind is not really a good thing to do no matter how right you think you may be, but edit warring with a bot over non-free content use is pretty much a sure-fire way to end up having your account blocked by a Wikipedia administrator. A bot is not going to stop as long as the issue related to the file's non-free use remains unresolved and a bot is not going to understand or try and debate things with you via edit summaries. It's better to seek assistance asap instead of reverting the bot because it's only doing what it's been tasked to do and will keep doing such a thing until the issue is resolved. It's OK if you weren't aware of this type of stuff, but keep it mind for future reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

One Live Badger cover

I’m writing in my sandbox about the album One Live Badger. I’m not sure if the image of the cover is fair use. If it isn’t, is there any way to make it fair use? The image is here: [1] Speatle (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Speatle. You might be confusing fair use (which is a concept recognized by the copyright laws of the US) with non-free content use (which is Wikipedia's way of allowing copyrighted content to be used in its articles). The two are similar in many ways, but there are some important difference and it's the latter what matters most when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy tends to be very restrictive. Although the policy allows copyrighted album covers to be uploaded and used per item 1 of WP:NFCI, such covers can generally only be used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the albums associated with the cover art. In addition, non-free album covers aren't allowed to be used in either the user namespace (which includes your sandbox) or the draft namespace per non-free content use criterion #9. So, my suggestion to you would be to continue to work on improving your draft and ensuring that it meets the notability criteria for albums, and wait until the draft has been approved as an article before worrying about uploading the album cover. If you try to upload it now, the file will most likely be deleted as orphaned non-free use per speedy deletion criterion #5. Even if you upload the file and add it to your sandbox, it will be removed per WP:UP#Non-free files and WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts. Whether your draft is approved as an article does not depend on whether there are any images being used in it; so, focus on getting the draft approved first and then worry about adding the cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Speatle (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

yearbooks

before I get scolded again today, can someone offer any guidance in the use of images from yearbooks. https://jacksoncountyhistory.org/items/show/141 https://jacksoncountyhistory.org/files/original/861c2ca17689821ea4cb2ce88317a03a.pdf

The link above is a yearbook from my hometown. The actual content is under the image of the cover in a pdf file. As you may notice, there are no copyright notices or markings. I got my hand slapped for using a screen capture from the 1971 edition of. the yearbook because classmates.com and some other sources used a similar screen capture. The wiki bot claimed that I violated classmate's copyright. I'm not sure that's correct.

second question this is an picture taken circa 1950 (based on the vehicles in the image and my knowledge of the subject). I'm trying to track down the son of the man who took the photo for express permission to use the photo. If the picture is that old, when does the copyright expire? How can classmates, or any of the yearbook sites scrape yearbook content if the content is copyrighted?

Thanks,

--Itsjustjody (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Marchjuly

I think it’s best to assume it’s protected by copyright and work to prove otherwise as explained here. Given the date of the yearbook, it’s possible that it could be within the public domain per {{PD-US-no notice}}. I’ve asked another editor knowledgeable about this type of thing and perhaps he will be able to help clarify things. Photos from a 1963 yearbook, however, would seem (at least on the surface) to have little encyclopedic value regardless of their copyright status, but you haven’t given much detail as to what photos you want to use and how you want to use them.

Most people helping out on noticeboards like this are more than happy to do so and assume good faith when answering questions, but they may be a little less likely to do so when a question begins the way yours does. In addition, a WP:PING will only work when it’s part of a signed post, but even when your properly ping someone, you may have to wait a bit till you get a response, but pinged editors are under no obligation to respond (another reason why it’s best to consider how you phrase your question).

Finally, I’ve already have given you my opinion on the hotel photo on your Commons user talk page, but perhaps someone else will have a different take on things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd have to guess they follow normal U.S. copyright rules. Notice required before 1989, and for yearbooks published before 1964 renewal would be required (those would be safest). There might be *some* argument that they amount to "limited publication", not the "general publication" which was the one which lost copyright, since the audience was a limited group of people rather than the general public. But I think in most cases that would only apply if there was a restriction against further publication, which seems doubtful.

Classmates.com would not have any kind of copyright on a scan from the book. As for how they could use it if copyrighted, they could be 1) claiming fair use, or 2) assuming that nobody would be able to prove a copyright, or if the could would not bother suing. Most of the time they'd be right. U.S. copyright before 1978 is based on date of publication almost always, not when something is created or taken. But, "publication" is itself a tortured concept before 1978 (after which there was at least a definition in the law). It's entirely possible that a studio photograph was published when it was first made, by selling it to the person. Or (under the unclear rules of the day) the unpublished copyright may have been transferred to the buyer, in which case the appearance in the yearbook might have been the first publication. But I'd say that the link you gave is fine. If a photo came from there, it would need the {{PD-US-no notice}} tag (or {{PD-US-not renewed}}), and not a CC-BY-SA license. [[:]] has a CC-BY-SA license, which means you are claiming that you own the copyright and are licensing it -- thus the speedy deletion tag which was added. If the image is PD for another reason, then change the tag appropriately, stating why it's public domain that way. If you got permission from a particular photographer who does own the copyright, they must communicate directly, by using the Commons:VRT process, which involves sending an email directly to that team. Commons can not rely on permissions relayed by a third party. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-feee image resolution

Why non-free images should always be low resolution? Vitaium (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

We are trying to make sure they meet US fair use allowances, which one facet is the impact on the commercial value of the work. Using a low resolution image rather than high is going to have a far less impact on the commercial value of the work itself. --Masem (t) 12:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding a non free fair use image in an article

I wanted to ask whether I can now add a non-free fair use image in an article Kyun Utthe Dil Chhod Aaye. Earlier when I added the image, it got a copyright strike as I didn't add correct tags and also the now article was just a draft at that time. So please inform me what all tags do I have to add in the following image: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-K6lTaX1Ni60/YB_4ZW3OFAI/AAAAAAAAFAQ/c0JfZdgMoww--tNXjNlLSvie4A-dZPtcACNcBGAsYHQ/s760/Kyun%2BUtthe%2BDil%2BChhod%2BAaye%2BWP%2B00.jpg Please revert back if possible on my talk page. -Natureisablessing (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Natureisablessing. If the file you want to add is going to be used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of the article, then it should be OK. Generally, a screenshot of the opening title card seems to be preferred for identification purposes in the main infobox for articles about TV programs as explained in MOS:TVIMAGE, but a promotional poster for the show should also be OK. If you uploaded the same file before, then you might not need to upload it again. Files that are deleted aren't really gone forever and can be restored by an administrator. So, if the file you previously uploaded got deleted for some reason (e.g. WP:F5), you can request that it be restored at WP:REFUND. Once it's been restored, update the non-free use rationale and anything else on the file's page as needed and then add the file to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Flags and historical data

Hi. I am writting, together with my very passionate abouy history 13 years old son, a book about historical events for worldwide countries. We use Wikipedia for documenting period 1840-present time for each country in order to extract a certain set of data: political status, flags image, surface of the country, population, capital city and certain data events in format dd.mm.yyyy. We do not describe the events, just extract de event data. We do have our completely different way of arranging those data. The book will be published for commercial purposes. Do we need to mention in our bibliography the authors of the articles and the bibliography they used for each and every country or it is enough to mention Wikipedia as a source? Thanks.

Ion Giscan Engineer Bucharest Romania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A58:821F:8000:B453:4574:39D8:2DB8 (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ion. I believe the information you need can be found in Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Whether March of the Volunteers lyrics/sheet music are copyrighted

User:George Ho has raised the question of whether or not the lyrics of the Chinese national anthem are copyrighted and thus unsuitable to include on Wikipedia, as we have been discussing at the article's Talk page. His point is that the writer of the lyrics Tian Han died in 1968, so that under PRC law (where the term is author's death +50 years), the lyrics would still have been copyrighted on the WP:URAA restoration date in 1996 of Chinese copyrights in the United States. This would mean that the U.S. copyright is in effect for 95 years from the first publication date of the lyrics (1934), so that they are still currently copyrighted in the U.S. even though they are no longer copyrighted in the PRC.

As discussed in more detail on the Talk page, at Wikisource on the bottom of the page, there is a justification for use given which says that according to PRC copyright law effective in 1990 the lyrics should have been in the public domain in 1996 on the URAA restoration date applicable to the PRC. This is stated to be because of the exemption in Article 5(1) for: "laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature; and their official translations".

George Ho disagrees with this as he says the lyrics of the national anthem are not such documents as exempted in the above law. I somewhat agree, though the 1978 version (there are two versions, 1978 version and current version) of the lyrics and possibly the sheet music do appear in the text of a pre-1996 legislative document. But we seem to disagree whether the exemption would apply to the 1978 lyrics and sheet music as a result.

I would very much appreciate opinions on the copyright status of the works in question as it relates to their inclusion on Wikipedia. Fiwec81618 (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of a title.

Hi, I added a picture of a ident from the 2017 "Oneness" set on BBC One in the History of BBC television idents page, and it has been removed, I'd like to ask if one of these two options can be carried out:

1. Undo the edit on the page, putting it back or
2. Removing the picture from BBC One 'Oneness' idents as it's the same picture as the one that got removed on the former page.

If the answer is not clear-cut, I'm fine with trying to find a solution with you. --Jamo62 (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The bot that removed the file left an edit summary which linked to WP:NFC#Implementation. Did you go to that page and check what is written there? The bot is removing the file per WP:NFCCE because it has not been provided with a non-free use rationale specific to that particular use, and the bot will keep removing the file every time it re-added to that article without adding a corresponding rationale for the use to the file’s page. The file has a rationale for its use in the other article which is why the bot isn’t removing it from there, and you probably shouldn’t remove it as well. Adding the missing rationale should stop the bot, but adding a rationale doesn’t necessarily make a non-free use valid per WP:JUSTONE and the file’s use in the article could still be challenged if someone feels the use isn’t justified per WP:NFCCP. If you have more questions about the bot, you can always ask JJMC89 because he’s the administrator operating the bot. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright. --Jamo62 (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Public Domain Status

Hello, fellow editors. I am wondering about the status of this film here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-4XchLQq9A&list=PLfsB4bwNClRK6_glHaK4qN0TnkpBRQy-B, called Grande Ole Opry. As you can see, it is on YouTube but there is no indication of any copyright status. It was released by Republic Pictures. It is a long shot but is there a chance it has lapsed into the public domain like so many other B-movies? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy Sorry but you're out of luck, copyright was registered in 1940 and renewed in 1967 [2], so it'll be in copyright until 1 January 2036. Nthep (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Photograph of Robert Beverly Hale on si.edu

Hello, I wanted to upload an image of Robert Beverly Hale to the English Wikipedia article about him, but I have no idea how copyright works, so I thought perhaps posting a link to the image here would help me determine whether it was okay to post.

The photograph was taken by Peter A. Juley. It's available on the Smithsonian Institution Archive website— I hope that means I can upload it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prismboy7 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It says "Usage Conditions Apply", which, if you follow that link, elaborates that to mean "may only be used for personal, educational, and other non-commercial uses consistent with the principles of fair use". From that and the rest of the page it sounds like the copyright is still held by Peter Juley's heirs or by the firm Peter A. Juley & Son. Without additional information regarding date of creation or publication, we can't consider it free which means we can't put it on Commons. Now, all that said, it probably is usable locally here on Wikipedia (in a much reduced size--scale it down before uploading) under fair use. The more elaborate guidelines regarding non-free images can be found at WP:NFCI. It's been a while since I've uploaded an image, but I'm pretty sure the File Upload Wizard sets up all necessary non-free templates as long as you answer the questions appropriately. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Prismboy7 Agree with VernoWhitney, upload it to WP as non-free [3]. Size is fixed after awhile by a bot, so you don't need to bother with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. I've uploaded and inserted the image into the article, and I hope I'm notified as soon as possible if there's anything wrong.

Prismboy7 (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)