Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Shortcuts WP:CQ WP:MCQ WP:IMAGEHELP WP:ICHD Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If you have a question about a specific image, please be sure to link to it like this: [[:File:Example.jpg]]. (Please note the ":" just before the word File) Thanks!
Click here to start a new discussion

Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Archives

Archive list Archive year 2006 Closed Archive year 2007 Closed Archive year 2008 Closed Archive year 2009 Closed Archive year 2010 Closed Archive year 2011 Closed Archive year 2012 Closed Archive year 2013 Closed Archive year 2014 Closed Archive year 2015 Closed Archive year 2016 Closed Archive year 2017 Closed Archive year 2018 Closed Archive year 2019 Closed Archive year 2020 Closed Archive year 2021 Closed Archive year 2022 Closed Archive year 2023 Closed Archive year 2024 Open Some pre-2009 archives from pages now merged here (note: more recent questions from these pages can be found at WP:MCQ or its archives above.) Requested copyright examinations archives Can I use... 2005-2006 archive Can I use... January-August 2007 archive Can I use... August-December 2007 archive Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 1 Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 2 This page serves as a portal for Yearly archives, inside the archives are in month format, please see the Archives in the sidebox. Thanks.

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

image on ruwiki. This image was uploaded in 2015 as copyright fair use. Is it still copyright in 2024, the 100 year anniversary of publication? Desired destination is Commons or enwiki, for use in Plutonia (novel) as a free image not fair use. -- GreenC 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC Russian copyright is life +70 years (extended in some cases to 74 years). The source [1] according to the ruwiki file description says "Cover illustration and interior illustrations by M. Dobrov", so you need to find when M. Dobrov died to work out if the cover is out of copyright yet. US copyright is going to depend on whether this image was used on an edition published in the US and when. Nthep (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It might be book illustrator Matvei Alekseevich Dobrov, but I can't prove it, and he died in 1958, only 66 years ago. -- GreenC 21:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US copyright only depends on the year of publication, no matter where in the world. (Twin Books Corp. v. Walt Disney Co. is a ruling that says otherwise, but conflicts with other US courts and is generally considered wrong; I've never seen anywhere on the Wikimedia websites that worries about it and I believe certain WMF-connected individuals would love a chance to get that overturned at the Supreme Court level.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prosfilaes: Does that mean a 1924 Russian book cover could reasonably be uploaded to Commons as PD, since Commons is hosted in the US? -- GreenC 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What that means for our purposes is that Commons would not be a good destination, given that Russian copyright is very possibly still enduring. However, with a 1924 publication date, it is free in the US, and therefore can be uploaded locally to enwiki. Felix QW (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. File:Obruchev Plutonia 1924.jpg. If you have suggestions for changing the license. -- GreenC 21:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I exchanged the license tag. Thank you for coming here with the issues! Felix QW (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. I was unaware free in US but non-free elsewhere can be uploaded to enwiki, that would have solved some prior problems with files deleted from Commons. -- GreenC 22:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any you still have in mind, c:Commons:Undeletion requests#To allow transfer of fair use content to another project outlines the process for temporary undeletion so you can bring them over here. Felix QW (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago I lost this deletion request [2]. It's a LibriVox cover based on a Swedish movie poster from 1921. LibriVox follows US Copyright so it's basically the same situation (Sweden has a 70+ year author rule). I can copy the image from LibriVox and use the same license tags. -- GreenC 00:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One could also go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and ask for the movie poster that used to be hosted here as non-free use to be undeleted on the same grounds. Felix QW (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Altenmann confirmed Special:Diff/1230812682/1230999027 Matvei Alekseevich Dobrov (d. 1958), thus 2028 it could be moved to Commons. -- GreenC 00:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavancb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#c-Nthep-20240621211800-GreenC-20240621201100 2409:40F2:3057:F932:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was looking up info about the movie and there was a few issues with the article, I fixed some, but I noticed that this is licensed as CC-BY-SA. This can't be correct unless the movie's copyright holder uploaded this them self. The file it's self was uploaded by CAPTAIN MEDUSA. However they also created the article which it is used on which is Antrum (film). This leads to either two possible scenarios: 1. Article was written by the movie's author. (Undisclosed, although highly unlikely) 2. The person who uploaded it probably doesn't have the rights to upload it.

However given it is just text, it might not qualify for copyright. Would appreciate some clarification on this because right now the copyright might on the image is very likely incorrect. I've not dealt with this type of issue before, and I've been away from Wikipedia for quite some time, so some help with this would be greatly appreciated! :) — Félix Wolf (talk | contribs) 23:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That file is on Commons, not here. I'm not sure that actual legal disclaimers are copyrightable, as they are essentially functional (though I'm also not sure that they're not), but since this is part of the film's actual storyline and not really a "real" legal notice, I would say it would qualify as part of the film as a creative work and is copyrightable. That said, it's on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. I'll look into it a little, but will probably nominate it for deletion over there. (The "own work" claim is, at best, highly implausible; that would need VRT confirmation and I don't see any.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found an image here licensed under a PDM 1.0 Universal Deed license. The photographer is listed as unknown as is the date of the image, but Siebs himself died over 80 years ago. Is this enough information to upload the image to the Commons? ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ThaesOfereode. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC. Commons only accepts files that are OK to uploaded under the copyright law of the United States and the copyright law of the country of first publication because Commons files are global files that can be used by any of the Wikimedia Foundation projects in addition to non-WMF-reated third-parties. In addition, the death of the subject of a photo is usually not relevant to its copyright status; the death of the author/photgrapher of the photo, however, can quite relevant be depending on the copyright laws covering the photo. In the case of anonymous works or works with an unknown author which have been published under US copyright law, for example, the work can remain under copyright protection for up to 95 years after being first published or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter, depending on when it specific circumstances. The particular file you want to use seems to be public domain, and it should be OK for Commons (unless there's significant doubt about the accuracy of the license). You might, however, want to check on Commons first just to play it safe. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the photograph was first published in a 1932-3 Festschrift in honour of the subject; see the bottom of this page. Felix QW (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pi Lambda Sigma Pin.png was uploaded and licensed as non-free, but that only would seem to be necessary if the pin itself is eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:CB#Jewelry. If the pin isn't eligible for copyright protection (e.g. it's {{PD-US-1989}} or {{PD-US-no notice}}, then a non-free license just for the photo would fail WP:FREER. On the other hand, even if the pin is eligible for copyright protection, then it would still seem that a non-free photo wouldn't be allowed per FREER since a freely licensed one could be uploaded and used instead, with a non-free license still being provided for the pin. FWIW, the design of the pin seems fairly simply and might actually be below c:COM:TOO US which means the only thing that matters would be the licensing of the photo, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. So see if you can a photo! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a 3D piece of jewelry, I do not think we can apply TOO here. We don't consider, for 2D art, effects that give the perception of depth or the like unless it was straight forward things like a drop shadow, and here, this is well beyond just raised letters on the center of the pin (eg why photographs of coins are fine, but not much more) Masem (t) 00:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand existing building photos cannot be fair use due to the fact that it's possible to take a new photo. But would this: https://www.times.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/heritage_art.jpg be able to be uploaded as fair use? Not as a photo of the building but as a photo of the arson. The building is now restored and thus it would be impossible to create a free use image of the arson of the building. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Traumnovelle. It appears you're asking about Guy's Homestead, right? There are a couple things to be aware of when it comes to non-free image use and that article.

1. Fair use/Fair dealing and non-free content use are not exactly equivalent when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has actually be set up to be more restrictive than fair use/fair dealing, and non-free content use is assessed in terms of Wikipedia policy.
2. Freely licensed photos of buildings aren't automatically OK just because they're "free". Where the building is located and the concept of freedom of panorama also need to be considered. Under US copyright law, there is freedom of panorama for buildings and other habitable structures per c:COM:FOP US, but other countries do things differently. New Zealand also seems to allow freedom of panorama for buildings per c:COM:FOP NZ; so, a current freely-licensed image of the structure would almost certainly be possible per WP:FREER, which would make any non-free image of the current structure unaccpetable.
3. While you could possibly argue that the photo you want to use meets non-free content use criterion #1 as not being replaceable non-free use (though text is considered and acceptable alternative to non-free image use), there are ten non-free content use crtieria that each use of non-free content needs to satisfy. Based on what I read in the article, I don't see how the file you want to use would satisfy non-free content use criterion #8 per WP:NFC#CS. This particular itself isn't really the subject of any sourced critical commentary anywhere in the article; so, it's not clear why this photo and not some other photo of the burnt out bulding couldn't be used instead. In addition, there doesn't seem to be any content about the arson incident in the article that requires this or any other non-free photo be seen to be understood. Would adding this image to the article improve the general reader's understand of what's written about the arson to such a degree that not seeing the photo be detrimental to the understanding of said content? That is how this file is unlikely going to be assessed in terms of criterion #8.

This is just my own rough assessment in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy, and perhaps others will feel differently. However, you should be prepared to justify the file's use in terms of relevant policy if you do decide to upload it, and find its non-free use being subsequently challenged by someone else. Don't just assume that an image of an historic event is automatically OK per relevant policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right with NFCC#8, thank you. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shotru (2011) poster Master of all cinemalovers (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Master of all cinemalovers: Please take a look at what I posted on your user talk page at User talk:Master of all cinemalovers#File uploads. All of the files you've uploaded so far have been flagged for one issue or another; some of these have been cleaned up by others, but some haven't. Uploading files without a copyright license and other required information is not a good thing at all, but repeatedly doing it over and over again might be an indication that you lack even the most basic knowledge relatred to files. So, you might want to stop uploading files until you gain a better understanding of what's expected of you as the uploader. If you keep uploading files without the required information, an administrator might decide enough is enough and take formal action against your account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The audio file needs modifications on the title, source as well as the Author. The title specifically needs Copy editing.

I wanted to nominate it for deletion but then I thought of asking for its modification here first. Kindly help in the alterations. Wår (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@War Term: Commons files need to taken care of on Commons. You should be able to make most of the changes you feel are needed yourself simply by editing the file's page, but you will need to follow c:COM:RENAME and have an administrator or some other user with file naming rights change the name of the file. If you're not sure how to make the changes yourself, you can ask at c:COM:HD.

However, there might be issues with the licensing of c:File:Nigeria_national_anthem_Nigeria,_We_hail_thee_midi.mid related to c:COM:NETCOPYVIO that need to be resolved first to make sure the file is OK for Commons to host. The file's description states the "author of the file is unknown", but then the file was uploaded under a {{cc-by-2.5}}. Only the author (i.e. the copyright holder) can upload the works they create under such a CC license; my guess is that the uploader didn't realize this and mistakenly thought that the file simply being available on meant it was OK to upload to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it. The source has no indication of a free license as far as I can tell, and a footer labelled For Educational Use Only. All Rights Reserved. Felix QW (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to tag it; However, since it may just be a MIDI file automatically synthesised from the sheet music score and I don't know if those are eligible for copyright, maybe one should file a Commons deletion request instead? There does not seem to be any copyright exception for the national anthem in Nigerian law, and it is not even 70 years old itself, so presumably it would evebtually have to be deleted on those grounds alone. Felix QW (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe that deleting the file is the best way to go. And then, re-upload it in the right way. Wår (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "right way" to upload a file to Commons if its licensing doesn't conform to c:COM:L. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Could you please provide detailed instructions on how to properly upload and tag the cover photo on Wikipedia what belongs to a Journal?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Kind regards,

Kateryna

Research Assistant~~~~ Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the now-blocked user's talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am seeking to upload the image found at https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C292398 for use at the article Frognall, Melbourne. The image is marked as public domain on the source website and is in the public domain in Australia, but cannot be uploaded to Commons as it is not in the public domain in the United States, which is a requirement for PD images uploaded to Commons (unpublished work with no identifiable author created after 1904, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-unpublished). Is it possible to upload this image to Wikipedia under WP:NONFREE or can it not be accepted here at all? Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is in the public domain in the US as copyright expired in Australia on 1 Jan 1994. US only extended copyright for stuff that was in copyright from 1996. Template:PD-Australia and Template:PD-1996 applies. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtree21: Based on what Graeme Bartlett posted above, you might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC. If this image is PD, then there's really no justification for uploading it or any other image of the same structure as non-free content per WP:FREER. For reference, a non-free image of a no longer existing structure might be allowed when no free equivalent or PD photos of the same structure can be found when the image is used for primary identification purposes in in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the structure, but it would be rather hard to justify the non-free use of such an image in another article or for other reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Graeme Bartlett: and @Marchjuly:, thank you for your responses, they are very helpful. I will ask about this image at COM:VPC, but from what I can find, the image only entered the public domain in Australia in 2014 (70 years after creation), meaning PD-1996 would not apply here as the image entered the public domain in Australia after the US cutoff date. Is that correct? Sorry to keep asking questions. Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As our Template:PD-Australia points out, photos first published in Australia and created before 1946 are PD in both the US and Australia. It would only be an issue if the image had really not been published until after February 1989, since it would then be protected in the US for 120 years from creation regardless of its Australian copyright status. Felix QW (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this edit reverted? The commons page mentions its "fair use" and its also used in the main 2 euro coin article. Other images of coins presumably have the same copyright.

edit: nvm it was explained to me on discord, i had to add the non-free media use rationale thing to it on commons

Colbertson (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for images of Kgari Sechele II, and the only ones I can find online are two from a visit to London in 1953 (he's the one on the left):

• The Botswana Society and Jeff Ramsey on Facebook, both have produced reliable sources on Botswana
• Getty Images photo from the same moment at a different angle

Is it possible to have a non-free image on the article about him? I'm not sure what the requirements are about where the image comes from. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Since Kgari Sechele II is deceased, a non-free image of him used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of the stand-alone article about him would, in priciple, be allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI as long as there's no reasonable expection of a freely licensed or public domain image of him being found and used instead. Given that he died in 1962, there might be an image of him out there somewhere that is now considered within the publc domain depending upon when and where it was published. Assuming that no such image can be found, the two images you cited above might have issues with WP:NFCC#4 (for the Facebook image) and WP:NFCC#2 (for the Getty image). See WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion and item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI for more details.

I don't think in either case, though, that the original copyright holders of those images you found are the Botswana Society or Getty. The Botswana Society most likely got their image from someone or somewhere and just uploaded it to their Facebook page, which probably would fall under fair use/fair dealing. Getty, on the other hand, could've purchased the rights to the image as part of some archive or collection, but Getty has also been known to try to claim copyright ownership over content already in the public domain (see also Copyfraud). So, you might want to ask about these at c:COM:VPC to see whether they might be in the public domain per c:COM:Botswana, c:COM:UK (since that seems to be where the photo was taken) or for some other reason. For reference, Commons doesn't seem to have a problem hosting Getty Images when the image is believed to already be within the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, I do not really see much chance they could be in the public domain. Botswana has pma + 50 and the UK has pma + 70 as copyright terms, and both have a 1996 URAA restoration date. Thus the image will almost certainly have been copyrighted in its country of first publication in 1996, making it copyrighted in the US until 2048 inclusive.

The only I see chance would be an image that was (simultaneously) published in the US and has not been renewed. At least Reg Burkett, who apparently took the Getty one, is known as a British press photographer, so without evidence to the contrary I would assume that the country of first publication is the UK. Felix QW (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open question. Mexican peso has 103 non-free files in it and is undoubtedly the page with most non-free files on Wikipedia, beating the second place by some 80 points. Articles are structured and worded to minimize the total number of items of non-free content that are included within the encyclopedia, where it is reasonable to do so. can be read at WP:FU#Number of items. So is this use of 103 non-free files really warranted? Jonteemil (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I will comment that the article is quite long. Other analogous articles may be split into several pages, such as "banknotes of". I think it is fair to include these images as the appearance of currency is very important to identification. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currency articles tend to be the highest image use-per-article on WP, however, it is fair that in a country where there is no automatic PD-ness of government coins or banknotes, that illustrating each major printing once (front and back) per issued note is fair. It does make sense to split banknotes from coins (and possibly both from the discussion of the peso as the unit of currency if necessary. There's a clear reason and purpose to that.

Of course, if there is an official image from the Bank of Mexico that includes all the necessary images in one single image, that would be far more preferrable as that would be a single non-free instead of a dozen or so. Masem (t) 00:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rissani Jewish Cemetery.jpeg is a non-free photo of a cemetary currently being used in Rissani#History. The photo is being used in an image gallery (which is not really allowed) per WP:NFG, but there are a few sentences about the cemetary in the paragraph located above. I'm not sure whether there's enough though to meet WP:NFCC#8, but I'm also wondering whether this needs to be treated as non-free. c:COM:FOP Morocco seems to indicate that there's only a very limited type of freedom of panorama allowed under Moroccan copyright law, but it seems that this would be OK under US copyright law. Is there any way for this file to be treated as PD locally under US copyright law? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is taken from a (recent) book, then it would be copyrighted, an not available under PD. A new photo could be taken and published here on Wikipedia so fair use is not appropriate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the article about artist/scupltor Miles Teves, there is a paragraph under "Reception" that praises a specific piece of Teves's art created for the cover the role-playing game Skyrealms of Jorune. I tried to add a non-free image of trhis artwork in order to illustrate this, using the rationale "This artwork is specifically mentioned in the critical reception quoted in the article." However it was quickly taken down by JJMC89 bot because "No valid non-free use rationale for this page." Can someone provide guidance on what to do to reinstall this illustration in this article. Guinness323 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pic is here: File:Cover art of Skyrealms of Jorune RPG.png. @Guinness323 The bot must be told that the other article is also ok, compare File:The Rolling Stones' logo.svg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guinness323: Unfortunately, this is a 100% on you and not an issue with the bot. It's a self-inflicted wound that's relatively easily fixable, but still self-inflicted nonetheless. When you uploaded the file, you chose to use Skyrealms of Jorune for the |article= parameter (the part that states "Use in article (WP:NFCC#7)) in the non-free use rationale you provided for the file; yet, you added the file to Miles Teves#Reception. That bot has been tasked with finding images being used in ways that do not comply with WP:NFCC#10c and the main way it does this is by looking for a link to the article where the file is being used in the non-free use rationale provided for the file. The non-free use rationale is telling the bot that the file is going to be used in "Skyrealms of Jorune", but the bot is seeing used in "Miles Teves" instead; so, it does what it's been tasked to do and removes the file per WP:NFCCE from the article or articles where it's being used without a corresponding non-free use rationale. The bot isn't reading the non-free rationale in the sense that you or I might read it. It's not trying to assess whether the file meets non-free content use criterion WP:NFCC#8. It's only looking for a technical connection between the non-free use rationale provided for the file and the article where it's seeing the file being used. Changing the article parameter of the non-free use rationale from |article=Skyrealms of Jorune to |article=Miles Teves ("Miles Teves#Reception" might even be better) should stop the bot removing the file.

Finally, tweaking the file's non-free use rationale should resolve the reason why the bot removed the file, but it doesn't automatically mean the file's non-free use is beyond reproach. Someone could still challenge the file's non-free use if they think it fails any of the other non-free content use criteria. Video game cover art is, first and foremost, generally considered to be acceptable when used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the video game itself. Trying to use such cover art in other articles or in other ways can be trickier and harder to justify per WP:NFC#CS; so, the more critical commentary (supported by citations to reliable sources) you can add to that section of the Teves article about how the cover art is representative of Teves work, the better your chances of avoiding the file's non-free use being challenged. What 's there so far isn't bad per se, but it puts a lot of weight on entirely one source and one person's interpretation of the significance of the work. If you can show that others have been discussing the cover in such a way as well, it might show present a more balanced picture of critical acclaim the cover received. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That image brings to mind the phrase "know where your towel is". In triplicate! Why doesn't the big green guy have a towel? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking about the illustration of Tlingit people catching salmon on this web page. Is it reasonable to conclude that this illustration is the work of an employee of the U.S. federal government and therefore in the public domain? Is the NPS notation at the end of the description of the illustration an indication of that? Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, it looks to be NPS work based on the credit on the photo caption. -- Whpq (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I loaded an image with a wrong name. Issue has been rectified except an administrator needs to speedy this file away. Thanks. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. In future you might find it easier to use {{db-self}} to make such requests. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added a picture File:Chang'e 6 lander and ascender.jpg to the info box of wiki page 2024 in spaceflight, as I think this is a pretty significant event in spaceflight this year. However, it was removed by JJMC89 bot the next day, citing WP:NFCC violation(s). I tried to read the wiki Non-free content criteria, but was a bit overwhelmed. From what I can gather, there is no free equivalent for this picture as it's one of a kind, and is only available from CNSA--their rover took the picture. Besides, this picture is used on another wiki page Chang'e 6 so it must be valid?! Can someone knowledgeable in this area help me decipher this? Thanks in advance! Showmebeef (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Showmebeef fair use rationales (fur) are per use, so you must add a valid fur for every article you want to use an image in. As there isn't one for 2024 in spaceflight the bot removed the image from that article. This isn't carte blanche to use the image in multiple articles by simplay addingfur, the NFCC are deliberately written to restrict the use of non free images, so while the fur for Change 6 is good, it doesn't necessarily hold that a fur for 2024 in Spaceflight is valid. Nthep (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Illustration_added_to_artist's_artice may be of help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any way to justify an additional non-free use of that file in 2024 in spaceflight in either the main infobox or anywhere else in the article per WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI, and trying to add enough content to do so probably wouldn't be appropriate for the particular type of article. The link to Chang'e 6 in 2024 in spaceflight#China Lunar Exploration Program is probably going to have to suffice in this case if a free-equivalent image can't be found to use instead of a non-free one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! Showmebeef (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm working on Gwoyeu Romatzyh, and a source I'm working from already has just what I felt I needed to add: a very basic table listing a handful of words and how they appear when written using different systems. I know information itself is not copyrightable, and there's not a lot of "work" here other than picking representative examples, but I still figured I'd ask whether it's alright to use the same examples adapted to a table in the article? Cited, it goes without saying. Remsense诉 01:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether it would be OK to use an image of a table found in an external source within the article or simply just using the information found in the table within the article? In the first case, there would likely be issues with WP:FREER (if the table comes from a copyrighted source) and also with MOS:TEXTASIMAGES regardless of copyright status. The second case isn't really a question for this particular noticeboard and you might be better off asking at WP:CPN, but it might come down to WP:NPS and how much of the original source you want to use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Thank you for pointing me the right way: neither of these places seemed quite ideal for the question, but that seemed more for issues in progress. Remsense诉 02:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question

Hello, I am working on creating an article relating to the Cuban revolution, and in finding images to use for the article I came across this photo on Ecured. I know that Ecured is very different from Wikipedia as it was created by the Cuban government and also has different rules, however I feel the fact that it was uploaded here and has remained there for 14 years without being taken down due to copyright violations may mean to me that it is not a copyright violation. However, the page itself does not present anything regarding it's copyright status, only a fountain bringing a a link to a news website. I searched the website for anything regarding the photo but I could not find anything. I don't feel 100% like I can use this so I am posting here to see if this image is okay to use Pavansur (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Pavansur (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavansur This may help a little:[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If "For a work by an unknown author, or a work published anonymously or under a pseudonym, copyright is valid for 50 years from the first publication of the work." applies here, this may be acceptable on Commons, but it's a big if. You could try asking there if no one here knows. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Cuba, there seems to be "perpetual copyright" for works of corporate authorship including government works and presumably party works. This could well affect many images that could otherwise class as "anonymous", such as those by staff photographers. Felix QW (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that essentially all post-1946 images first published in Cuba are still copyrighted in the US (due to the URAA), and the English Wikipedia must apply US copyright law since it is based there. Therefore, I think your best chance would be images published contemporaneously in the US (e.g. press photos of the time), which could be in the public domain for failure to renew their copyright, or images that the (Cuban) government or ruling party has explicitly released under a free license (perhaps because they have an interest in their dissemination too). Felix QW (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: copyright question. The 50 Greatest Cartoons is a 1994 book about the fifty greatest cartoons of all time. This table list of Wikipedia articles, which lists the cartoons mentioned in that book, has been repeatedly removed as a copyright violation. So, my question — is that table list of Wikipedia articles a copyright violation, just because those particular cartoons are mentioned in that book? Furthermore, at least three of those cartoons listed, Felix in Hollywood, Gertie the Dinosaur and Steamboat Willie are in the public domain, so the authors of that book can't claim any copyright status over those particular cartoons, and I'm failing to see how any of these Wikipedia cartoon articles being listed would be a copyright violation in relation to that book. If this isn't the correct board for this question, please advise where I should ask. Thanks.

And also, how is this different from these films (Wikipedia articles) being listed in The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 from Sight and Sound magazine, or these films (again, Wikipedia articles) being listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, or these films (again, Wikipedia articles) being listed in AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills, both from the American Film Institute. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time 2022 lists the top 10 rather than the whole 100. I would say that copyright would apply to a list of 50. It would be fair use to mention the top several, but not fair to use the top 50 of 50. Whether the film is PD or copyrighted is irrelevant as the copyright is in the whole list of names. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway although it's only an essay, not policy, Wikipedia:Copyright in lists is a useful read here. The copyrighted content in 50 Greatest Cartoons is the order in which the list is presented, not the cartoons themselves. This is because of the selective way, and therefore, creativity was used in generating a top 50. Nthep (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up, according to Kww – WMF legal has ruled on the issue in the past: reproduction of a list that was compiled by any form of creative effort is a copyright violation (from article talk page – Alleged copyvio). I actually own a copy of this book, and for instance, number one on the list in the book is What's Opera, Doc?, which consists of pages 30-36 in the book, with intricate details and commentary about the cartoon, and all we have on the table list is the cartoon, rank and release year. So I don't see how a bare-bones list of this type infringes upon the authors "creative effort", when we are not reproducing any of those intricate details and commentary from the book. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ranking is a copyrightable element in its own right due to the creative effort used in compiling the list. Nthep (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills is a list of the top 100 most exciting movies in American cinema, and all 100 films are listed in that article, AFI's Greatest Movie Musicals is a list of the 25 top musicals in American cinema, and all 25 musicals are listed in that article, seems like to me the same standard would apply - The ranking is a copyrightable element in its own right due to the creative effort used in compiling the list. In fact, AFI has a whole series of articles. Seems strange to me there is no consistency, 50 cartoons can't be listed, but 100 or 25 films can be listed, when creativity was used in generating the ranking in all of these lists. I guess we have different standards for different articles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Isaidnoway (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the list from AFI's website - AFI's GREATEST MOVIE MUSICALS, with a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, and our article is identical to that AFI list. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where it is at but I believe we have gotten an okay directly from AFI to use their lists. — Masem (t) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure. Reproducing the order is akin to saying that this book has ranked the cartoons in that order, which sounds to me like a non-copyrightable fact about the book. How is this different from having a footnote remarking which cartoon received an award from which organisation? Surely, deciding which cartoon to give an award to requires creative effort, but that does not mean that the fact that it was awarded a certain rank is automatically copyrightable. If typographical elements or textual fragments of the book have been reproduced, then that is a different matter. Felix QW (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the rank of one item would just be a fact, but the whole collection in order is a creative effort. AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills should be chopped back. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every single article in that series is the same. AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains, AFI's Greatest Movie Musicals, AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs, AFI's 100 Years...100 Passions, AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs, AFI's 100 Years...100 Cheers, AFI's 100 Years of Film Scores. And then there is BFI TV 100, a list of 100 television programmes or series that was compiled in 2000 by the British Film Institute, with all 100 programs listed. And Abraccine Top 100 Brazilian films with all 100 films listed. There are dozens and dozens of these types of lists, like I said, there is no consistency. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what kind of answer you're looking for here. For one, this noticeboard is related to media copyright matters and this discussion doesn't really seem to fall under its purview per se. Moreover, it appears the list you're asking about has been previously discussed before on the article's talk page (at least it seems to have been discussed) as far back as June 2007, and it appears that the consensus reached on the talk page is that it was (is?) a copyvio. So, it's unlikely anything that's discussed here is going to all of a sudden change the mind of everyone whose been removing the list over the years. I guess you could try an WP:RFC or even perhaps ask somewhere like WP:VPP or WP:CPN to see whether opinions have changed over the years, but going on and on about what basically seems to be an WP:OTHERCONTENT based attempt to argue is probably only going to get lots of "Well, perhaps those other list articles shouldn't exist (at least not as they currently do)" types of responses. Please understand that I'm really not trying to be disrepsepectful here, but Wikipedia is full of all kinds of inconsistencies; it's the nature of the beast given the type of project Wikipedia is. Many who have been around for a long time seem to have at some point come to terms with that and realized it's pretty much always going to be that way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a note on the top of this page that says - 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. No one seemed to mind responding to my query, including you, thanks for your reply. Have a nice day. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ticket associated with the AFI lists (see their talk pages) that affirms with AFI the lists are in the PD. So we can include them in full. — Masem (t) 14:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed that, the ole eyes ain't what they used to be. I gleaned a lot of new information from this discussion, thanks to everyone who participated. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAF_squadron_135.png#mw-jump-to-license

The source of this image (Hebrew wiki) states that this image has been released into public domain by IDF so can someone fix that Waleed (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M Waleed The file is on Commons File:IAF Squadron 135.svg with a VTRS processed permission attached. A local upload isn't needed unless there is some specific reason for a png version. Nthep (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I recently uploaded an image of the wiphala of the Kuntisuyu, which like the Chinchaysuyu and Antisuyu, has a variant on the wiphala design most recognize (Qullasuyu) specifically representing that suyu. Unfortunately however, the other wiphala are criminally underrepresented beyond some use from fellow Andeans, and I had to screenshot an image of this wiphala from this Reddit post. Because this image was a screenshot of a wiphala that I couldn’t find anywhere else, I’m completely lost on how I should tag its copyright status. I’ve never done this before, and I simply wanted to add the missing wiphala to help complete the quadfecta. I’d appreciate some assistance on adding the copyright status. Intichkanmi7378 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]