Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/March

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is a screenshot from a copyrighted movie "fair use"?

Is a single screenshot taken from copyrighted movie considered fair use? My reading of Fair Use is that it is -- it does not supercede the use of the original work, and is for educational purposes.

Specifically, the "Hugh Herbert" article badly needs a better photo of him.

BMJ-pdx (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

  • For Wikipedia, the context of whether something is appropriate for Fair Use matters a lot, so there's not a "yes" or "no" answer to your base question. A screenshot from a movie to illustrate the actor is probably no good, unless their appearance in that movie is the subject of particular discussion in the article. Herbert is dead, so there's no chance of producing a free replacement, which helps.
  • But, nevermind. He appears at least in the movie Eternally Yours, which the copyright was apparently not renewed for (e.g., check 1966 and 1967), so it would've entered the public domain in 1967. So you can use a screenshot from that movie, in which he appeared, as it's in the public domain. There are probably others. WilyD 16:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


Thanks for the tip re "Eternally Yours". Unfortunately, he's a minor character in it, so there aren't any close-ups, and quality is mediocre, being PD. I have a very good screenshot of Uncle Ezra from "Dames" (1934) (the movie is copyrighted). So if I upload that, what are the ramifications of the worst-case scenario: That a lawyer somewhere tries to justify his/her own existence by objecting? I'm thinking in terms of possible trouble for Wikipedia, and my future as a contributor. (If it just gets yanked, I can stand that.)

BMJ-pdx (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@BMJ-pdx: The existing image of Hugh Herbert is from Dames and asserts that the film is now public domain and therefore out of copyright. If this is correct (I haven't checked if it was registered or renewed) then you can use any image from the film. Nthep (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nthep: The existing image is from the Dames trailer, which seems to be PD due to lack of copyright notice. I had no luck checking the status of the movie itself (which does have a copyright notice), but I would be very surprised if Warner Bros. let it lapse. So I'll wait to see what the ramifications of posting a screenshot from the movie itself are. (But it sure seems to me to be a "fair use".) BMJ-pdx (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@BMJ-pdx: I can tell you now what will happen - it will be deleted for failing WP:NFCC#1 as we already have a free image of Herbert. Nthep (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nthep: Granted, but it's a pretty poor one -- he's hardly recognizable, so I don't think it qualifies as a free "equivalent". My goal, which I'm all set to fulfill, is to improve it. BMJ-pdx (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Our definition of a "free equivalent" is very loose. If the free image was an outright blur, then a non-free that was clearer would be fine. But we can recognize more than enough details of his face that no non-free (particularly given the period of these films) could replace it. --Masem (t) 20:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: I disagree on two points: First, the existing image is scarcely recognizable (and I've seen a lot of Hugh Herbert). For one thing, one of Herbert's hallmarks is his wide-open, bulging eyes -- but in the existing image his eyes are nearly closed. Another hallmark is his goofy grin -- he is not grinning in the existing image. (Actually, his main hallmark is just being plain goofy, which the existing image is not.) Second, you seem to imply that a film from 1934 is necessarily of low visual quality. That's far from true; Dames is one example. BMJ-pdx (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Whether the image is characteristic of how he played his roles isn't really the point. It's more that it can be made out as him and I don't think there is any doubt that he can be recognised in the image that we already have. I agree it's not brilliant but it is adequate. We have all found non-free images that would be better than free images but the non-free content policy is a pretty bright line that it is deliberately, very difficult to bypass. Nthep (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nthep: Hugh Herbert is known for his roles, not for his personal life, so an image characteristic of those roles is to the point. And I find it quite a stretch to say that the existing image is recognizable. The screenshot I have meets all ten points of WP:NFCC. BMJ-pdx (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
A suggestion: Remove the "Hugh Herbert" from the existing image, and show it to people familiar with Hollywood comedies of the 1930's, to see how many can recognize who it is. (It looks just as much like Sidney Toler as it does Hugh Herbert.) BMJ-pdx (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I will point out there are limited times we consider the use of non-free for recognizably over freeness but that strictly has been when the person is really best know as a starlett in their youth but have no free image then, and either we have free images of them as an elderly person, or that we don't have one but they are still alive but also elderly where a free image could still be possible. We only allow it if is clear that the visual appears in their youth was key to their notability. A hypothetical would be Diana Serra Cary if we had to resort to non-free to show the actress in her toddler years despite the free image of her in her 90s. I can't see a justification of this same type for Herbert here, as it seems its his mannerisms and less his looks are the claim to fame, which can be described in text. --Masem (t) 00:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: Your point about his mannerisms being describable in text strays from the point -- that being that an image showing him in typical form best serves the purpose of identifying him by sight in films. BMJ-pdx (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Right we want an image that identifies him, but we're at a level that talks of the finer details of his facial features that free image currently is obscuring just a bit that some non-frees provide better. Unless you have sourced discussion in the article that talks about these specific features of his faces (similar to what is there about his mannerisms), then asking for a non-free to be used is not going to be allowed. --Masem (t) 01:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Masem:You have completely misrepresented the shortcomings of the current image. His eyes are nearly closed and his mouth is contorted; the result is that it hardly looks like him. Specific features of his face are not at issue, and it's not a matter of whether someone can identify who it is; it's a matter of whether or not that image helps someone identify an unknown face in a movie. BMJ-pdx (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
That's not the purposes of images on WP. They are to help support the text. The current image, may not be great, but I get a decent idea of what type of role he had in film. --Masem (t) 03:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, Eternally Yours was just an example. The guy was doing movies in the 1930s, there are probably other films where the copyright wasn't renewed. I haven't verified it, but Danger Lights, which he was in, our article asserts the copyright wasn't renewed. Double check, but the studio apparently went bust in the 1950s so that makes sense. If there's nothing you like there, check the rest of his filmography. I doubt those two are the only examples. WilyD 05:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
@Wily:Thanks for being helpful, and not trying to convince anyone that the existing image is adequate to aid in recognition. The prints I've seen of Danger Lights are very poor quality, so I will probably go with Eternally Yours. It's a pity that Wikipedia can't just accept Fair Use law, because the image from Dames is far better in quality and in purpose. PS. I really do not want to hear anything more about the existing image, or whether the sky is blue or green. BMJ-pdx (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Help Regarding an Existing Logo Image

Hello I'm probably missing something while using an existing media file File:JNV Logo.svg from commons in Wikipedia article List of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas. After reading the description thoroughly, I learned that the image is non free but the license has been provided by the uploader already in the description that it can be used in any Wikipedia article on related to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas because anyway the same image describes these articles. I had put this particular image file in the above said page but a bot removed it. Can you please help how to put it back again so that nobody removes it. I don't think this is copyright violation because the permission is already given in the file description. Can anybody please clarify and help me understand using media files in a proper way? Thank you. — The Ultimate Let's Talk 05:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi The Ultimate. File:JNV Logo.svg isn't from Commons; it uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. Each use of a non-free file needs to meet all ten non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP and those which don't can be removed or even deleted. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#10c which says that a file needs a separate and specific non-free use rationale for each use. Many times a file will be being used multiple times, but is lacking a valid rationale for some of these uses; in such cases, the file can be removed per WP:NFCCE and this is why JJMC89's bot removed the file from the list article. Since you have added a rationale for the use in the list article, the bot should stop removing the file.
However, as I mentioned above, there are ten criterion which need to be satisfied for each use and if even a single one of these criterion is not met then the use is not considered acceptable. By adding the missing rationale, you addressed the problem with NFCC#10c, but adding/providing a rationale doesn't make a particular non-free use automatically compliant per WP:JUSTONE. List articles and lists within articles, in particular, are also subject to WP:NFLISTS and using non-free images in lists tends to be a bit harder to justify. The source for the image you gave in the rationale you provided shouldn't really be "Wikipedia"; moreover, you might want to better clarify why of how seeing this particular logo in the list article improves the reader's understanding of the subject matter. After all, the same logo can be seen in the article about the JNV system itself and there's a link to that article found in the first of the list article which seems and acceptable alternative to an non-free image per WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI; in addition, it doesn't seem like the reader's understanding of the list article is going to be seriously affected by not seeing the logo in said list article.
Wikipedia tries to encourage us to minimize non-free content use as much as possible and even though non-free files can be used more than one time, additional uses are much harder to justify. So, while the logo might look nice in the list article, the question is whether it really is something that is needed for the reader's understanding of the subject matter. My opinion is that it probably isn't, but others might feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Marchjuly, thank you so much for this valuable information. Now I get the point. — The Ultimate Let's Talk 08:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Ontario Provincial Police Logo.svg

This is another file originally uploaded as non-free content which has been recently converted to PD by TrailBlzr. Since the reasoning being the given license change is different from File:Ontario Provincial Police logo.png being discussed above, I'm keeping the discussions separate. While I'll agree that the "O.P.P" is most likely a non-copyrightable element, I'm not so sure about the COA/shield imagery or the crown imagery. It's possible that the entire logo itself might be PD for some other reason (e.g. age, non-renewed), etc., but it seems to go beyond the scope of {{PD-ineligible}}.

When the file was originally uploaded, this was given as its source; that link is dead, but an archived version can be found here. It's hard, however, to find out anything specific about the logo since source isn't really about the logo itself, but rather just shows it being used. The current website of the OPP Museum is here and the same logo can be seen used there, but again there doesn't seem to be really any information specifically about the provenance of the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:I've reverted the file to its fair use version. We don't know when was the patch adopted, and don't forget in British-influenced copyright law, threshold of originality is extremely low. Better to be remained as fair use.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Need some help finding actual sources of images

Is there an expert around here that is great at tracking down actual sources of photos that have been freely shared on the internet for years? - not Reddit or whatever, etc...this is for an event that happened in the 1920s, but not far enough away for public domain to kick-in for all the images. I'm sure there is more than one expert around here, if I could get multiple experts that would be even GREATER. Seriously, I need some help with being able to correct/adjust the source parameters on about 8 image-File pages on Commons for an article I want to submit someday soon to a WP:FAC. Post your account names below and you'll be hired! No pay but Wiki-pats on the back will be forthcoming if you can help me solve this issue. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Whether we will be able to help with your issue will very much depend on what images you are referencing. So I'm afraid that you'll have to provide additional information. GMGtalk 18:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with GreenMeansGo. I am usually fairly adept at finding historic sources, but it would entirely depend on the topic. SusunW (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo & SusunW and any other possible helper-types:
Ok, yeah, here we go. The article is Bath School disaster, the article has been undergoing a peer review on Talk:Bath School disaster prior to my possibly submitting it for FAC. The disaster happened in 1927, so far as I know some of the photos appeared first in Ellsworth's book published in 1927 so public domain doesn't apply for some of the Files. This online rendering of Ellsworth's book was privately republished by the Clinton County Historical Society in 1981 but that private printing is also out of print. I did find one source - a 2017 article 22 things you may not have known about the 1927 Bath school massacre on Mlive.com by a Julie Mack that claims the source of most of these photos as Source: Michigan Historical Archives but I don't know if those are the official State of Michigan's Archives. A 2017 Smithsonian Magazine article uses some photos of the disaster and states "Courtesy of Arnie Bernstein", who wrote Bath Massacre: America's First School Bombing but that book wasn't published until 2009... An additional wrinkle is that these photos have been freely shared all over the internet - in blogs, magazine & newspaper articles, TV news reports, Reddit, pinterest, etc. - so trying to track down the actual/initial sources doesn't seem that simple or easy.
Anyway, the photos are as follows:

I hope this is enough detail...many of these photos were added to Wikipedia or to Commons back before I even started editing here. I really need to save them and be able to use them in this article. Thanks everyone - Shearonink (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

One last word - I have to go off-WP for most of the next 24 hours. If someone posts here I won't be able to get back to it until maybe tomorrow/Wednesday or later. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I could really use some help with this... Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Could still use some help, remaining hopeful... Shearonink (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... Well Shearonink.. I don't think your original ping went through. (Repinging SusunW also.) It seems likely that many of these photos are from exactly 1927, meaning that they won't fall into public domain for the next three years. The only other recourse is to figure out who the photographer was, but you're right. It's difficult to make heads or tails with so many versions available, mostly probably taken from exactly here. GMGtalk 18:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I finally corresponded with an author who wrote a book about the disaster, the photos that they used were claimed as public domain. Ordered their book so after it arrives I can look at the sources/permissions in the book itself and will go from there. In the meantime, will continue to poke around the internet to see what I can find.
Some of the pics date from before 1927, for instance that pic of Kehoe and the main pic of the school probably dates from 1922 when the building opened for use, but, again every version of the school pic (plus Kehoe) I have seen is undated. If any of you image mavens around here have some ideas or could do some research on your own on any of these files that would be awesome. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks GreenMeansGo, I didn't get the earlier ping as you surmised. Shearonink, trying to follow the links on commons from where the original images were scanned seems to go back to this page, but many of the links there are now dead. I concur that the photos most likely originated in 1927 and without an author are hard to authenticate in copyright.gov as to whether a renewal might have been obtained or filed. I am promising nothing, but will do a search of newspaper.com and newspaperarchives.com and see if I can help. SusunW (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Major thanks going out to GreenMeansGo and to SusunW. I know the standards for FA are very high, would like to try to get everything nailed down before I take the article to FAC. Shearonink (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink, I find no sourcing for the consolidated school image in newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, archive.org, or hathitrust. For the image of Kehoe, a McGill University site gives the source as Ellsworth, Monty J. The Bath School Disaster (1928) but states it is a reprint. Having no access to the source, I have no idea if Ellsworth says where he got it or if by reprint, he simply means he copied the photograph and 1928 would then be its first publication. A name search of Kehoe results in nothing except a marriage notice prior to 1927 in newspapers.com or newspaperarchives.com (though there are several mentions of his wife). Still working on the other images. SusunW (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The chimney and car, and all of these are marked copyright by the National Editorial Association and were published by the Associated Press. Could be that a search of copyright.org would confirm no renewal, but the tag that they were not copyrighted at the time of creation is incorrect. Still working on it. SusunW (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
SusunW & Clindberg - The chimney photograph in the article is a different photo than the photo that was claimed by National Editorial Association/Associated Press. I am sure that many people took photos of the ruined farm & house - if you look at the chimney photo printed in Benton Harbor News Palladium and the one in the article from Ellsworth's book they are taken from different angles. Shearonink (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Shearonink, if you cannot find that particular chimney image taken by anyone, then literally just write up all the research you have done and make sure it has the correct copyright tags. I write something like this to explain why I came the conclusion I did. Glad Clindberg was able to help. As I said before, he's a master :) SusunW (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
SusunW I've already fixed the article's "chimney image" up, take a look at Kahoe House remains-east. Would love your opinion as to if you think everything looks good. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Shearonink, were it me, I'd put in it that a search of newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com confirms that the images taken by the NEA were not the same as this one from the book. I'd also put in that the Stanford copyright renewal database (give link) with searches for "Ellsworth", "Bath", "Bath School", "Bath School disaster", "National Editorial Association", "Associated Press" provided no renewal data, nor did the UPenn database (give link) have results for "various applicable search terms". The book does not appear to have ever had its copyright renewed based on searches and later reprints were made after the copyright expired. The deal is you are trying to make an airtight case and by disclosing everything you have checked, makes it less likely that someone will refute it. 17:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
SusunW Take a look at the image's Commons page now. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Clindberg Would also welcome your opinion as to the information I've provided on the chimney's Commons page. Is it detailed enough, maybe is it too detailed, etc. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Shearonink, that looks good to me. As I said, the more info the better. People will shee you have done a thorough search. SusunW (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Shearonink That looks fine. For renewals, always good to document what was searched for. There does however appear to be an image credit in the bottom right corner of the image, which I can't quite make out. Several of the images from that book had what seemed to be a similar credit, but I couldn't read any of them. That could mean they are the author's own photos, but might be good to figure out what that credit is. I don't think it matters for the U.S. copyright (or Commons), unless it gives another name to search for, but it may matter in other countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Clindberg *sigh*. Another wrinkle. oh DEAR. Ok, looking VERY closely at the photos from Ellsworth's book... there are three photos in the article with this labeling: the destroyed truck photo, the farmhouse chimney photo, and the photo of the destroyed Bath School building from the rear. The labeling is hand-printed somewhat faintly in white ink in the bottom right-hand corner "VAN'S PHOTOS". There is no identification of who this "Van" is, there is not a separate photo credit listing anywhere in the entire book (for any photographers), I have been unable to find this "Van" or "Van's Photos" in Bath or in Michigan around that time. I don't know who he or she is. I did a search of the Directory of Early Michigan Photographers by David V. Tinder, Edited by Clayton A. Lewis of the University of Michigan and got no results for a "Van" (or variation thereof) as a photographer who possibly took photos of Bath around 1927.
Now. Upon very close inspection of some of the other photos that Ellsworth used, there is another label of "LINN PHOTOS CO" on some of the photos but none of the Linn photos are used in the article. The Linn Photo Finishing Company does turn up in the Directory of Early Michigan Photographers online database. So. Does that mess up all my research? (Shearonink goes off the quietly sob in the corner...) Shearonink (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't mess anything up, but I'd do a quick check for photo renewals using those names. The photo renewal sections are very short so shouldn't take long. That is the claimed author however, so may be good to note that. Unless you find a renewal it would not affect U.S. copyright though, so the images should still be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
SusunW Forgive my ignorance but how are you seeing the claimed copyright status by AP/NEA re:these images? Shearonink (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
See, it is a sticky wicket with these photographs, they've been freely reprinted in the intervening years in all sorts of publications and are also all over the internet as well. Thank you for looking into the sourcing.
Re: the Ellsworth book...Monty Ellsworth was a neighbor of Kehoe's, his son survived the blast at the school. The photo of Kehoe - the only one of Kehoe that I have found - predates 1927 and in my opinion was most probably a personal photo belonging to Ellsworth since the two families were friendly with each other. Also, the Cornell cite is incorrect - the Ellsworth book was privately published in 1927 and there was a private reprint in 1981.
I know you probably know this already but the photo of the whole Kehoe farmhouse dates from before 1927, the school photo also dates from before 1927. Shearonink (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Shearonink the deal is that it doesn't matter when they were made, it matters when they were first published (unless you can prove they were taken before 1900 and never previously published is my understanding). So, you must be able to determine when they were first published. I've now spent a couple of hours searching and gone through several hundreds of images of this disaster, and they all seem to be credited to NEA. On the previous clip, it says point blank, "copyright 1927, NEA Services, Inc." One image is weird, as both NEA and International Illustrated News, which apparently made a derivative image and stuck their name on it, claim to be the originators. A lot of reprints of the images without crediting NEA occurred, so you are right, it appears that the author is unknown, but I'd bet $ on the fact that they were the source of most of the images reprinted. You are right, Worldcat confirms the Ellsworth book was first privately printed in 1927. If you can get a copy of the 1927 version, (https://www.worldcat.org/title/bath-school-disaster/oclc/6743232?referer=br&ht=edition search here] for a library), you might be able to confirm what images came from it, but they would still be under copyright in the US until 2022. SusunW (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
One more tidbit, in the event that Ellsworth took the photos in the book, he died in 1974, thus images taken by him are not usable until 2045. SusunW (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, let's say that the copyright status is murky at best or not quite clear...can we say that "these are the only existing images of these events/people" type of licensing or rights or...? Regardless of the copyright status, there is a certain right of the public to know about and of historical events I would think... Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
The public does know about it, and there are plenty of free images already in that article, so they would not be permitted as nonfree. In a couple more years, those images will be usable, but it seems they are not today unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that they're PD. If copyright status is "murky or unclear", we assume that media is under copyright until conclusively demonstrated otherwise. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok. But. "plenty of free images". Plenty... Already in the article? If we take out all of apparently problematic images no images are left. Technically and apparently all of the images are under a copyright?issues? cloud. Don't know what to do at this point... Shearonink (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Shearonink, I would ask Clindberg who is an expert with renewals, if he's available. He helped me on some tricky images for a FA that fell in that copyrighted between 1925 and 1963, but not renewed and published in between 1925 and 1978 without copyright notice images. I can only tell you from my experience, that if you cannot demonstrate clearly the status, the images won't be allowed for FA. SusunW (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
SusunW *sigh*...I know, I know. I guess if the images' sourcing/permission issues can't be cleaned-up to a T pre-FAC then I won't submit - I feel a certain measure of responsibility to maintain the images alongside the article for historicity's sake. Thanks for your help in all this, hopefully Clindberg will happen along and be able to assist. Shearonink (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I can't find a renewal for the 1927 book -- that should be public domain. There are credits etched into many of the photos from that book, but I can't read them on the web.archive.org link given. Anything published at the time would have needed to be renewed in 1954 and 1955; there are very few photographs renewed. See the UPenn pages at https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/ for links to the actual volumes (and Stanford has a search tool for older book renewals only at https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals ). Photos could of course have been renewed individually or as part of a book or magazine, but the vast majority of photos published in that era were not renewed. Still, searches should be done. If you can't find renewals by the NEA in the photo section for those years that may be enough for that photo. Just knowing that photos were published at that time is extremely helpful, since that limits the search possibilities (and we know they will definitely be PD-US-expired come 2023). Also, no daily newspaper outside of New York City renewed issues prior to 1945, so any photos in newspapers that were by newspaper staff should be OK. Photos reprinted from other sources would have had a different copyright owner, and you'd need to search for renewals by that copyright owner instead. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad to see you here Clindberg but I'll be frank...I'm not sure I understood what you just said. I'm trying to look for Ellsworth/Bath School/Bath School disaster/National Editorial Association at the two links you posted above but wow...this is overwhelming. For instance - do I have to look in every single volume of every single year at the UPenn link?
Ellsworth's book's original publication was privately printed with no publisher identified and then I keep on finding assorted private printings (2 new ones today): 1981 (printed by Clinton County Historical Society), 1991(Bath School Museum Committee), 1995 (Bath School Museum Committee, Bath MI), 2001 (I don't know who had this one printed) but all the versions are considered rare, I could possibly buy one through Alibris or one of the copies available through abebooks or through Amazon with prices ranging from $125 to $569. I just wish I could see the title-page etc of the reprints, that would at least maybe let me know if the copyright was renewed for the reprints. Or not.
I'll take another stab at this tomorrow, but lol I kind of feel like I don't know what I'm looking for. Shearonink (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Clindberg Ok, so I combed through the Stanford database - doing searches for "Ellsworth", "Bath", "Bath School", "Bath School disaster", "National Editorial Association", "Associated Press" - - and nothing's turned up so far. I've been going through the UPenn database and have been unable to find any references to any of the various applicable search terms. If my various searches or any searches that other Wikipedia editors do - if our research doesn't turn up any hits, so the photos are not under copyright...how do I delineate that the photos are public domain or whatever they are? I mean how do I fill out the sources/permissions at their File pages here on Wikipedia or at Commons? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be the license {{PD-US-not renewed}} (same tag name on both Wikipedia and Commons). I did not find the book renewed either, and did not find any photos renewed (the renewal sections for photos are very short). Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that. Did run into quite a few greeting-card art renewals from one particular company. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
For renewals, the initial term lasted 28 years, and you had to renew in the last year of that copyright. So, it would have needed to be renewed in 1955. I do sometimes check the year before (since at one point renewals were allowed starting on the 27th anniversary of publication) and the year after (renewals filed very late in the year sometimes were not published until the following year's volumes). If not renewed, items published in 1927 became public domain in 1956 and have remained so. If they were renewed, they get a term of 95 years from publication, which would not be expired yet. But you would have to find the renewal record somewhere for that to be true. I would document the names that you searched for. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Clindberg For the text of Ellsworth/The Bath Disaster and for the photos that he used in his book, does it matter that the author died in 1974.
Is there any special place to search for the newspaper photos? I have already looked for Bath/Bath school/Bath Michigan/Andrew Kehoe in all possible 1927 sources and then in the possible renewal years of 1954/1955/1956....I suppose I need to do searches for "Mad Bomber"/Bomber/Maniac and any other possibly pertinent terms as well... Shearonink (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
No, for the U.S. the copyright term of anything published before 1978 was based on date of publication, with the lifetime of the author not mattering at all. The text of the book is fine, as are any photos he took for the book -- it was not renewed. For copyright renewal searches, it's the name of the copyright owner that is usually the most effective search item. If there are any credits on the photos, make sure to search for those names. Frankly, the odds of something from that era getting renewed are really really small. If you've done a responsible search -- and it sure sounds like you have -- it's probably fine to call them PD-US-not_renewed. If someone can come up with a valid renewal record, it would be revisited, but items published in 1927 have less than three years of copyright remaining even if renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess one remaining issue is the photos that have been ascribed to the National Editorial Association with the copyright being held by the Associated Press....I haven't found any renewals for those but will do another sweep & some deep dives tomorrow and this week to make sure that {{PD-US-not renewed}} is going to apply to the pertinent images. Shearonink (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Clindberg I just found a copy of the 2001 printing for sale. Am hopeful the seller will be able to tell me what is on the "7th Printing" (7th. Printing.) title page or printing page. I am assuming it is a facsimile edition, it might just actually be a complete-duplicate of the first printing without any changes for 1st Printing/2nd Printing and so on. If the seller does get back to me with this info (and any possible copyright renewals that I have missed could be on that 7th Printing page), then the issue might be definitively settled... Shearonink (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Clindberg I haven't heard back from the 2001 print-version owner yet but I did find someone who has a copy of the 1981 printing of Ellsworth's book, they are going to email me a photo of the copyright page/printing page so I can see if there's any claimed copyright or if the 1981 printing is simply a facsimile re-print of the 1927 original.
I have done some more deep-dives into the various copyright listings and so far:
  • no known renewal of Ellsworth's book (checked book and pamphlet renewals for 1954/1955/1956)
  • no renewal of the various photos of the disaster that appeared in newspapers and were originally copyrighted by National Editorial Association/Associated Press (checked photo renewals for 1954, 1955, 1956) So far, so good...nothing!
Am hopeful the owner of the 1981 printing will get back to me soon. Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I posted about this over at Talk: Bath School disaster but wanted to re-post about it here as well. The owner of the 2001 printing has stated that there is only one copyright notice on the "Copyright/Printed" page and that is "Copyright 1927", the Printings are listed as: 1st printing 1927, 2nd printing 1928, 3rd printing 1981, 4th printing 1984, 5th printing 1991, 6th printing 1995, 7th printing 2001. NO copyright renewal. The Bath Disaster and the photographs it contains are, therefore, public domain. Yeah, I know, I'm not a lawyer but that is my opinion based on my research. Clindberg: if you could weigh in here, I will consider the matter closed and when I nominate Bath School disaster for a FAC, I'll provide a link to this discussion as one of the answers for editors who have questions about the copyright status. I also have a query in to Nikkimaria to see if I need to do any more deep-dives on the photographs in the article that are not from Ellsworth's book and are mostly from newspapers (as in under past claimed copyright from the National Editorial Association/Associated Press). Shearonink (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Later printings don't matter (unless additions were made, and only those additions would have a different copyright term). The 28-year clock started in 1927, and the book was pretty plainly not renewed. Photos from external sources may have been renewed separately, but there would have to be a renewal record found in order to delete it -- we know they were published in 1927, which limits the searching needed. So for the ones you have searched for, they would seem to be {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It looks like I have co-mingled/misidentified two different photos of the front of the collapsed Bath School Consolidated School after the explosions...There is this one from Ellsworth/Linn's Photos and then this one from the NEA/AP. I'm taking a break for a while, all the images - different aspects of the same image, different angles on the same event or item - are running together. Will revisit the permissions/sources/Commons' File pages/etc tomorrow. Shearonink (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Those issues have been fixed/resolved. Shearonink (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

SusunW & Clindberg - I have gone through all the images in Bath School disaster and in my opinion their permissions/sources should be good to go now. If you could take a look at the image Files and my cites/information there, would appreciate any & all feedback. Thanks - Shearonink (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink you have done a massive job making the status of these more clear. The only one of those used in the article that I do not see adequate information on is the photo of Andrew Kehoe. At the very least it should give the information that the book was copyrighted and per your verification under various searches not renewed. SusunW (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
SusunW Done. Shearonink (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Clindberg - If you have time, would appreciate your taking a look at the images in Bath School disaster and giving your opinion as to if the Files' source/permissions are as complete/as good as possible. Am waiting for word from you and from a separate prose review before I submit for FAC. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink Looks good to me. I put in the life dates for Hiram Marple (that is technically still under copyright in some countries, though not the U.S.). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Clindberg Thanks for taking care of that, good to know about the life-dates/technical copyright. And thanks for all your help on the images in Bath School disaster. Shearonink (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Patricia Morgan

Does anyone know the copyright status of the 1963 magazine Female Mimics cited in the Patricia Morgan (transgender woman) article? It contains a number of photos of Morgan, and can be found on the Internet Archive. (See here.) Does this mean that the copyright has expired (per Copyright renewal in the United States), and this is in the public domain? If so, I can transfer some of the images to Wikimedia Commons. -- The Anome (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: I've searched for the name of the publication in https://exhibits.stanford.edu/copyrightrenewals , and cannot find a renewal. As I understand it, that list is definitive, and means this pre-1964 image is now in the public domain in the United States. -- The Anome (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The Anome The Stanford database is only for books, not any other kind of work. Periodicals were listed in different sections and are not online there. There are links to scanned volumes of copyright registrations and renewals at UPenn. However, they do have a list of periodicals and the first renewals found for each here, and I don't see that magazine listed, so presumably it was never renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Club de Rugby Santander

File has been removed from this page and not sure why. I added the club logo, something which is present on all the other pages of the club in the same division, but on this page it has been deleted by a bot. LeverageSerious (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi LeverageSerious. If the file was a logo and it was removed by a bot, then most likely the file is licensed as non-free content. My guess is that the bot was JJMC89 bot and probably therefore left an edit summary with a link to WP:NFC#Implementation.
Non-free files can be used in Wikipedia articles, but there are ten specific criteria which need to be met for each use; in other words, non-free use is not automatic and just because the same file may be being used in one article, it shouldn't automatically be assumed that means its OK to use in other articles or in other ways. One of the main reasons that a bot tends to remove a non-free file from an articles is because the file is lacking a separate specific non-free use rationale for that particular use; so, the file is removed per WP:NFCCE. The simplest way to remedy this is just add the missing rationale to the file's page. You need to be careful here though in that providing a rationale is only one of the ten aforementioned criteria, and doesn't make the particular use compliant unless the remaining nine criteria are also met. So, adding a missing rationale most likely will stop a bot from removing a file, but another editor who disagrees with the rationale can challenge it. In such cases, it might take quite a bit of discussion to sort things out. Anyway, I hope this answers your question. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Found a picture of Ruffian but unable to find any proof of copyright. Would that be in the public domain?

So I’ve been looking around the web and some articles and found a really nice picture of Ruffian, the Thoroughbred filly. There was no proof of copyright nor owner. Would this image be considered free-use and can I upload it? My previous attempt to do so resulted in it’s speedy deletion. Also, the current photo in the article’s infobox was apparently sourced from Google (the file description said that the author was unknown and it was supposedly a free file - no proof of copyright, which led me to believe that it was alright to upload that photo in that same manner). Any advice would be appreciated, thanks! KaiserDog21 (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Ruffian with her jockey Jacinto Vazquez.jpg which is the file you are referring to is not properly licensed. Just because the uploader foiund it via google and cannot determine the photographer, that does not mean the image is public domain. I have nominated it for deletion. Rather than approaching the image licensing as "There was no proof of copyright nor owner.", you need to approach it from the opposite. It is copyright until you find proof that it is freely licensed. This can be in the form of an explicit declaration of free license from the copyright holder, or there image satisifies one of a myriad conditions that make a work public domain. -- 13:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi KaiserDog21. It’s generally better to assume a photo is protected by copyright even if there’s no copyright notice, especially if it’s a relatively recent photo. Often you might see a photo used on some website that isn’t really the origin source of the photo or isn’t owned by the original copyright holder of the photo. In some cases, the website might provide attribution for the photo (e.g. this photo is courtesy of ABC), but many times there’s no attribution at all. Since the website isn’t really the copyright holder of the photo, it can’t claim ownership over it or copyright it. The website might be using the photo under a claim of fair use, but that doesn’t make them the copyright holder. It’s kind of hard to give you a more specific answer than that because there really a lot of this to consider such as who took the photo, when they took it and where they took it. Copyright law can vary significantly by country which makes where the photo was taken kind of important. Even if the photographer is truly anonymous/unknown, the photo could still be protected by copyright depending upon how old it is. If you can provide a link to the website where you found the photo, then perhaps someone can help sort things out.
One last thing to remember is that just because you see a photo uploaded to Wikipedia under a certain license doesn’t mean that it’s properly licensed. People are uploading files all of the time as their own work when it’s really not. There not trying to pull a fast one or anything like that; they just misunderstand how copyright law sometimes works. So, unless you’ve actually taken the photo you want to upload yourself, you should start by assuming that most likely someone somewhere owns the copyright on it and then try and figure things out from there.
As for public domain, any photo taken and first published prior to January 1, 1925, is going to almost certainly be within the public domain, but it’s not going to automatically be the case for anything after that date. See c:Commons:Hirtle chart for more specific details. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I've uploaded a photo of Ruffian under the non-free criteria ("This is a historic portrait of a person who is no longer alive"). I've made sure that all the details were filled out as accurately as possible, adding that the image will stay on the specified article and won't go anywhere else. Please let me know if I've done anything wrong here. KaiserDog21 (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
A non-free photo seems fine as long as there are no issues with WP:FREER. If someone does find a free equivalent image capable of serving the same purpose of primary indentificaion, however, then the non-free you upload most likely won't be able to be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sufficient permission?

Some time ago, I tried to get in touch with the relatives of a deceased photographer, in order to obtain their permission to use some of their photographs on Wikipedia. Upon managing to find a contact, I wrote to the person, informing them of my reasons for contacting them and Wikipedia's image use policy. Part of their response went as follows:

"You are welcome to use photographs by my aunt [name redacted]. She died in 1958. [...] There are no copyright issues and I would be pleased for any of their photographs to be seen, especially if they are acknowledged."

Would this qualify as sufficient permission for using photos by the photographer (who died in 1958)? I haven't found much evidence suggesting that she had children, but information on her is rather limited and this was the only contact I could find. If needed, I can provide a full copy of the email to whoever may need it. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Toccata quarta. There is a license used on Commons called c:Template:PD-heirs that might work for this type of thing; however, there's no equivalent that I know of for use on Wikipedia. One advantage of uploading the files to Commons is that such files would be global files, meaning that they can be pretty much used by any Wikimedia Foundation project by simply adding the file syntax to the relevant page; a file uploaded to Wikipedia, on the other hand, would only be a local file, meaning that it's use would be limited to only English Wikipedia.
Not trying to be a contrarian here, but often when people say there are no copyright issues, it's usually because they either don't know that to be the case or just mistakenly assume it to be the case; things can change fairly quickly when photos uploaded to Commons get downloaded and used in ways that the "owner" of the photo (or their family, etc.) don't find suitable. People also assume that uploading a photo for use on Wikipedia will automatically mean that it can be only be used on Wikipedia for educational purposes or at least not used anywhere else or in any other way with their permission. A WP:PD photo is basically one that either never has been or is no longer eligible for copyright protection; so, in a sense nobody has ever really "owned" it or someone once did but no longer does. A PD work can be pretty much used in any way by anyway anywhere without a real restriction placed on them. A freely licensed photo is one that somebody "owns", but one in which the owner has decided to make readily available to others to use under the terms of a license of the owners choosing. The owner still retains their copyright ownership over the photo, but is just make a version of it available for others to use under certain terms. Because of the way the Wikimedia Foundation has chosen to license the content found on its project pages (see WP:COPY), there are only certain types of "free licenses" that it accepts.
Copyright is like a piece of property whose ownership can be transferred from one person to another either through a some type of agreement or through death. Often when some who takes a photo dies, that persons copyright ownership sometimes transfers to their estate (i.e. their family) or someone else they may have designated instead. Assuming these are just family-type photos with not a lot of commercial value, all that the family member would need to probably do is follow the instructions given in c:Commons:OTRS as applicable and upload the photo to Commons themselves; if you want to do that on their behalf, you probably would need to have the family member send a WP:CONSENT email to Wikimedia OTRS after you upload the photo. I don't think OTRS is going to except and type of "verbal" agreement or any transferred emails between you and the copyright holder if you're the one uploading the emails. One thing you might want to let the family member know is that file's uploaded to Commons can be pretty much downloaded by anyone anywhere in the world at anytime and reused for any purpose (including commercial and derivative use); moreover, once a files has been uploaded to Commons under an acceptable license (particularly by its original copyright holder), there's kind of no way to cancel the license at a later date if the copyright holder changes their mind.
There is another possible option for files uploaded to Wikipedia called non-free content, but that can be a bit tricky to do depending upon the type of photo, how it's intended to be used and where it's intended to be used. One thing about uploading any photos, etc. to Wikipedia or Commons, it that you're sort of hoping that others are going to play by the rules and use the photo according to how its licensed; there's, however, no real way for Wikipedia or any website, etc. to stop someone from downloading it and then using it in some inappropriate way (i.e. contrary to the terms of its license) in advance and the Wikimedia Foundation is unlikely going to go after people who do such things after the fact. So, it's going to be up to the copyright holder to enforce their copyright.
Finally, licensing issues aside, just a file has been uploaded to Wikipedia, doesn't guarantee it's going to be used or at used in a way that the copyright holder wants as explained in WP:IUP#Adding images to articles. Often an image is like text in the sense that any disagreements over it use that aren't related to copyright usually need to be resolved through consensus established through discussion. Commons is like a big online photo album and you'll find many images on it that are not actually being used in Wikipedia article (non-English Wikipedias included) or even on any other page; Wikipedia, however, is not really set up to be an image host per se and files which aren't being used in any articles sometimes get deleted or transferred to Commons. If you know all of this already, then my apologies. If something I wrote is incorrect, then someone else will likely correct me but you might want to do some digging yourself just to make sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly, thank you for the thorough response! I was aware of most of these issues, but I rarely get involved in the "copyright side" of Wikipedia, so this was a nice refresher. To make a long story short, I intend to take the article Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji to FA status this year. As you can see from the article, Sorabji led a reclusive life and there are few sources and photographs of him and his acquaintances to work with. The article has had a non-free photograph in the lead for a while now, justified with WP:NFCCP points 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 (see File:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji.jpg). I've also been in touch with various Sorabji scholars, who can attest to the issues involved in contacting photographers, determining who owns the rights to particular photographs, etc.
Given all of this, what would be the recommended course of action? I suppose photos of Sorabji's close relatives and acquaintances could be uploaded and justified along similar lines, but other cases will be trickier. Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
A free image would be preferable to a non-free one, particularly if the image is just going to be used for primary identification purposes. As long as the current non-free statisfies all ten NFCCP (satisfying 1,2,3,4,7,8 alone is not enough), it should be OK. Obviously, if you're able to track down a free equivalent image, that that would make any non-free one almost certainly fail WP:FREER; you don't, however, have to search until the end of time. As long as you conduct a reasonable search; then you should be fine. Now, how "reasonable" is defined depends on who's doing the defining, but it sounds like you've been making a fair effort to find one and not just googling "Copyright free photos of Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji" and coming up empty. It's also not like Sorabji died yesterday and someone just saw that as a great chance to finally add a non-free image of him per item 10 of WP:NFCI; he's been dead for quite some time, well before Wikipedia was around, and the article was created back in 2005. The non-free file currenlty being used was uploaded in 2018 (13 years after the article was created) and was added here by Finnusertop; Finnusertop has lots of experience dealing with non-free files and he wouldn't have uploaded the file if it was a clear-cut FREER violation.
I don't know what the FA criteria say about using a non-free image in the main infobox, but I can say that being an FA article is not in and of itself not considered an automatic justification for non-free use; so, if the article is upgraded to FA, the file should still be replaced by a free equivalent if one turns up sometime in the future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

YouTube channel about En Vogue-is the channel official?

This YouTube channel is about the music group En Vogue. The question is whether the channel is official and legitimate, which could affect the legitimacy of linking to videos on the channel. I was initially of the impression that the channel was official; however, the site http://www.envoguemusic.com/ has at least two links that lead to a different YouTube presence (EnVogueVEVO). --Elegie (talk) 10:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: In the article Something_He_Can_Feel#En_Vogue_version, would it be permissible on copyright grounds to include a link to this music video (possibly using the {{External music video}} template)?
The YouTube channel that I previously mentioned appears to be what YouTube calls an Official Artist Channel. (In particular, YouTube mentions the use of a musical note icon to identify Official Artist Channels in such places as the YouTube page for a channel.) The mentioned video is included in that channel. This YouTube page mentions the eligibility requirements for having an Official Artist Channel. From there, the question is whether music videos on an Official Artist Channel can be assumed to legitimate. --Elegie (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: Any thoughts on this? --Elegie (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This sounds more like a question for WP:ELN that MCQ. I guess it’s possible for a band, etc. to have more than one official YouTube channel and in such a case it seems as if WP:ELNEVER, WP:YOUTUBE or WP:COPYLINK would not be an issue. Perhaps Beetstra could help here since he often helps sort out EL stuff. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Is ASCII art public domain?

Since ASCII art consists entirely of text characters, is it PD-ineligible, like a text-only logo would be? Or is it eligible for copyright (assuming it's above the threshold of originality) since the text characters are arranged in a creative way? The specific example I had in mind was the AI Dungeon logo [1], but I'm mostly asking out of curiosity. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

My guess is that ASCII art that is meant to depict an artistic image (such as a fictional cartoon character) can be copyrightable. If a normally uncopyrightable logo (that would be considered {{PD-logo}}) was converted into an ASCII art rendering, then the resulting ASCII art might or might not be copyrightable; I am not totally sure. --Elegie (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
One could argue a, say, 16-color image is just a collection of repeated use of 16 squares (individually non-copyrightable) over and over, but obviously that's not the case. I cannot find anything exact, but I would say that if the ASCII art surpasses some threshold of originality looking at the overall image and not how it is composed, then it can be copyrighted. For example , a typical smiley ";-)" would fail that, but when its more artistic (ala [2]) then that's copyrightable. --Masem (t) 05:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Most US courts consider that combining a significant number of uncopyrightable elements can create a copyrightable work. Different Circuits have different tests for originality in this way, but a work that clearly shows human creativity is protected by copyright. In this way, ASCII art is more like a medium of expression. --AntiComposite (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of a non-free image on two Wikipedia pages

I would like to use the following non-free image - File:Portrait_of_Raymond_Moriyama.jpg - which I uploaded, to the article McGill School of Architecture in the 'Notable alumni and faculty' section as the man depicted in the photograph, Raymond Moriyama, is one of the most notable graduates from the School. Is there anything I can do? I believe the inclusion of this photo on this particular article in addition to Raymond Moriyama's own Wikipedia page would still constitute minimal usage and should still be considered fair use.

Please let me know! Jonahrapp (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It is near impossible to justify its use. We do allow multiple uses of non-free images but each use needs a separate non-free rationale. You have the one for Moriyama's own bio page, that's fine but you'd to justify a whole new rational to use on the school's page and there's where you have problem in that you have already several free images of alumni; adding a non-free among the free would be pretty much disallowed by our rules. The image remains fine on the bio page. --Masem (t) 01:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

MiniDisc logo should be transalated to Wikimedia Commons and put PD tag

I think File:MiniDiscLogo.svg should be PD per lacking originality (like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LaserDisc.svg, for example). Thanks --Jakeukalane (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Would maps from this book be OK to upload?

Link

There are a bunch of maps at the back of this book. I'm not sure if it's OK to upload them: the book itself is freely available as a pdf, but the site says "May not be used for commercial purposes". What's the protocol for this sort of thing? 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

3 kids in a trenchcoat "May not be used for commercial purposes" usually means we cannot use such a publication. Having downloaded the complete files, I do not see any copyright notice, so as it was published in the US between 1925 and 1978 without such a notice means this license {{PD-US-no notice}} is the one that applies. Many organisations, such as universities and museums, makes copyright claims or restrictions based on whatever reasoning but many such claims are false. This is known as copyfraud. ww2censor (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Huh, interesting. Wasn't aware that such a license existed. Does this mean it's safe to upload the files in question? Thanks for replying. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
3 kids in a trenchcoat: Indeed, wikipedia, and wikimedia commons, which is where you would upload this, accepts public domain, PD. You may find it useful to familiarise yourself with the Commons:Hirtle chart. ww2censor (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Thanks for the replies. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

File:NorthernTrains.svg

The image File:NorthernTrains.svg is claimed by JaJaWa (talk · contribs), its uploader, as |Source=Northern |Author=Northern but I believe that these are far too vague for our purposes. At the very least the full name of the organisation should be provided. I see that at https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/ a very similar logo is displayed, and that page shows "© 2020 Northern Trains Limited. All Rights Reserved." at the very bottom. Is this a matter for WP:FFD, or is there a WP:CSD criterion that applies? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

This logo looks too simple to be eligible for copyright protection in the US per c:COM:TOO United States, but not simple enough to be not eligible for copyright protection in the UK per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom. In cases like this the license {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} is often used, which kind of seems to be what the uploader was trying to here in a roundabout way. So, there doesn’t seem to be a copyright based reason for deleting the file. The question then has to do with whether this is really the logo used by Northern Trains. The link you provided above seems to suggest that it is which means that contextually the file seems also OK to use. The only thing that seems to be needed then is to further clarify the source of the logo (even provide a link to NR’s official website) on the file’s page and replace the two copyright licenses currently being used with {{PD-ineligible-USonly|United Kingdom}}. —- Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Unable to publish image on Generation X page, any reason why?

Thank you, I am trying to publish the image on the page but it does not register, any idea why? File below:

File:Oscar posters 79.jpg

Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchScholar (talk • contribs) 12:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi FrenchScholar. You seem to have asked the same question above as #Kramer vs Kramer File for Generation X page and Nthep has posted a reply. Please check Nthep’s answer and if there’s something you still don’t understand, feel free to respond to him in that thread. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Kramer vs Kramer File for Generation X page

Hello, I have tried to add a photo to the Generation X page to symbolize the divorce culture in the US during the 1970s, in line with the text. In the history section of the Generation X page, the image was deleted. As such, in line with Non-free use rationale guideline, I added the following on the file page File:Oscar_posters_79.jpg#filehistory to justify its use, what more must I do?

I appreciate any feedback. "The image is significant because the film epitomize the divorce culture in the US during the 1970s, relevant to the text." — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchScholar (talk • contribs) 11:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@FrenchScholar: I've removed all but the relevant statement of the rationale from what you posted. This is about WP:NFCC#8 which states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." So it's all about context. If there is sourced critical commentary that says that Kramer vs Kramer epitomises divorce culture of the period and Generation X in particular then it may be enough to substantiate the use of the poster in the Generation X article but you need to ensure that sourced critical commentary is included in the Generation X article. Even then you need to justify why the reader needs to see the film poster rather than just a mention of the film. Nthep (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
13:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Hello again
Thank you, I am trying to publish the image on the page but it does not register, any idea why? ::File below:
File:Oscar posters 79.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchScholar (talk • contribs) 13:03, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
It's missing a ] after Kramer. But this doesn't answer the previous point about establishing context. Nthep (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
13:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Thank you, I will add context.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchScholar (talk • contribs) 13:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@FrenchScholar: I’m afraid that there’s not going to be any way the the non-free use of the film’s poster in the “Generation X” could be justified per Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy. Even if you’re able to find critical commentary in reliable sources (not original research) which states the film does epitomize divorce for that generation, there’s still no real reason per WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI to justify using the film’s poster in that article. The only possible way such a use might be justifiable would be if the poster itself, not just the film, was actually the subject of critical commentary saying that the poster, not the film, epitomizes divorce. Even in that case, a link to the film’s Wikipedia article would still be preferable to using the actual file.
Finally, please take a look at WP:TILDE and make sure to try and sign your talk page posts. Signing your posts makes it easier for others to see that it’s you posting and know when you posted. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Ask for Angela

I have a student who would like to upload an image of an "Ask for Angela" poster. The posters in question are copyrighted, so my question here is whether or not these could qualify under fair use guidelines. The poster would be something along the lines of this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

  • On one hand it may not be absolutely necessary, but on the other I do think that the poster would be helpful in the same way that the book covers are, as they would help identify the topic in ways that words alone couldn't. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Hi Shalor (Wiki Ed). There might be a couple of options here depending upon the copyright status of the poster, which is a bit tricky to assess because the copyright laws of the UK and US are different in some pretty important ways. For example, works produced by employees of the US government and a few state goverments, etc. as part of their official duties are considered to be within the public domain, but I don't think the same can be said for the UK; so, this poster will most likely needs to be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content because if you try and upload it to Commons it will eventually if not fairly quickly be tagged/nominated for deletion. This means that each and every use of the file will need to comply with all ten non-free content use criteria listed here, and even failing one of these criteria would make a particular use non-compliant.
      Generally, non-free poster are is allowed to be uploaded and used per item 4 of WP:NFCI when it's used for primary identification purposes either at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the subject of the poster; for example, a movie's theatrical release poster is allowed for primary indentification purposes in an article about the movie, and a concert's or event's poster may be allowed for primary identification purposes in an article about concert or event. Since this article appears to be about some kind of public-awareness campaign, then it seems possible to use it's poster for the same purpose. Ideally, it would be best to try and add some sourced critical commentary about the poster to the article to better establish the connection between poster and article content and strengthen the justification for non-free use, but in general if the poster is/was issued for primary identification purposes, then that's usually enough. Other types of non-free use and or uses in other articles, on the other hand, tends to require a much stronger connection between image and article content as explained in WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-3; for example, there's generally no problem with using a movie poster to a stand-alone article about a movie to identify the movie, but using it an article about the production company/director/cast or even the person who designed the poster is not always as simple to justify and almost always requires sourced critical commentary specific to not only the album cover, but also the subject of the article to meet WP:NFCC#8, and using the poster in a genre-type of article or list article about movies in general is almost never allowed. The further you move away from the actual subject of an item of non-free content, the harder it becomes to justify its non-free use.
      Anyway, non-free content use is a bit of self-assessment and no matter how policy compliant you may think a particular use is, another person can come along at anytime and challenge it; when that happens, sometimes a consensus is need at WP:FFD to sort things out. There's nothing wrong with uploading a file if you think its use(s) meets the WP:NFCC, but there's always a chance of it being deleted (even after a long time); so, in that sense it's sort of just like any other WP:BOLD edit in that WP:SILENCE may be assumed until someone comes along and disagrees. The most important things with respect to any files are explained in WP:IUP#RI: all files need a copyright license and information about their provenance. Since this poster appears to be the primary way in which the organizers of the campaign choose to identify their campaign (i.e., the campaign's brand image in a sense) to the public, I think it should be OK as {{Non-free poster}} using the non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale poster}}, but someone else might feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • As an alternative to the poster itself (as it is mostly text which has short phrases that you can replicate), if you can find a "live" example as on the back of a womens' bathroom door *and* you can take a discrete picture freely such that the poster itself is not the main focus (see de minimus) then you can license that as a free image and show how the "Ask for Angel" poster is used as aligned with the text of the article.
  • Also note that it looks like state-side its been adopted to "Ask for an Angel Shot" which I did just try to find free images, no luck either, but something to keep in mind. --Masem (t) 06:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Screenshot FUR

Could someone take a look at File:From Russia with Love video game screenshot.jpg? Not sure how to best fix it. Raised also on its talk page. Andrewa (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Andrewa. Masem is generally a good person to ask about video game screenshots, but it appears that the file is being used twice: once in From Russia with Love (video game) and once From Russia with Love (film). Personally, I don't see any justification at all for the screen shot use in the article about the film; so, I don't think the file should be used in that article. In the video game article, however, it would seem possible to justify its use, except for the fact that there is already one non-free screenshot from the game being used. Generally for video game articles, a non-free image of the games box cover is considered OK for the main infobox and then a non-free screenshot of in-game play, etc. is considered Ok in the body of the article; anything more than that usually tends to be much harder to justify per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. In order words, one screenshot seems to generally be considered OK just to show how the game looks to those playing it, but other screenshots tend to require that they themselves be the subject of sourced critical commentary, and the way this screenshot is currently being used in the article doesn't seem to meet that standard.
You can find out some general information about non-free use rationales in WP:FUR and Template:Non-free use rationale video game screenshot can be used for rationales for video game screenshots, but the use itself is going to need to meet all ten non-free content use criteria for the file to avoid being deleted; just adding a rationale is not in and of itself sufficient. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, exactly the advice I was after, that's pretty much what I'd observed and suspected but didn't have the experience or detailed knowledge to be sure. My main concern here personally is making sure good content doesn't get deleted just becasue the rules haven't been followed. But this content doesn't seem to be important, and may not even be saveable. Andrewa (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Are test card screenshots also a copyrighted television program?

Hello everyone, I'm from Korean Wikipedia. I almost tried to upload my KCTV photo but found out already that file I would like to upload is existed on English Wikipedia. It was File:Korean Central Television 16-9 Test Card.png that I watched. But, I felt strange because Licensing said it is a screenshot of a copyrighted television program. but when I visitted c:Category:Television test patterns in Wikimedia, there are so many screenshots / photos of test cards. Even I uploaded my KCTV test card there. another KCTV test card (SD version) is visible there, too. Anyway, I think test cards is not 'a copyrighted television program' and it should be the common file on Wikimedia. If that is true, how can I move that photo to Wikimedia? --Raccoon Dog (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

First, Wikimedia is the organisation which encompasses Wikipedia and a number of other projects. By "Wikimedia", I suspect that you mean Wikimedia Commons, a collection of freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute.
Most test card patterns are electronically generated, and the image in general will be the property of the generator's manufacturer. Usually, they are customised by the TV station, to add the station name; but this will not affect the ownership. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2020/March&oldid=949713570"