Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
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.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

A radon picture I found

I found a picture of radon and was wondering if it was copyrighted or not. The website itself is quite empty and doesn't have any information about the licensing of it's pictures. HAt 09:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The image seems to come from a 1965 publication, so if that book was published with copyright notice, it will sadly still be in copyright for a long time to come. Felix QW (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Although, unlike the references page at the image source, our Wikipedia page on the series actually dates it to 1963. This would means that it would have to have had its copyright renewed to still be in copyright. In fact, however, there is a renewal entry for Some photographic & illustrative material prev. pub. in Life magazine" under the title of the book, Matter, by the book's publisher, Time Life. So it seems it is indeed protected by copyright until 2058 inclusive. Felix QW (talk) 11:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

See you in 34 years! HAt 12:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Radon is a colorless and odorless gas. So it's tricky to take a picture of it? Might explain why there's no image currently in the infobox. But oxygen, argon and of course neon all have one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Then take one. HAt 13:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah right. If I see some, I'll try and get one on my mobile. Anyone got any holiday snaps of xenon?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I have "seen" krypton first-hand in the sense of seeing the colour from electric discharge, but not xenon. Radon would be harder to find in any visible form. :D Double sharp (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyways, argon and neon have picture because this is the plasma form. HAt 13:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

In this picture, you are not actually seeing radon itself (because it's colourless); instead you are seeing the resulting radioluminescence. Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Just like at all the other noble photos? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. The other noble gases are not radioactive, so the colour there has to do with light emission by electrons dropping down to the lowest energy state. Not so for the radon picture. Double sharp (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

It's still the closest thing to picture of radon though right? HAt 12:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose so, but since radon is not actually visible in it, and nothing actually unique to Rn is visible, I'm not precisely convinced. If only there had been some kind of picture when its freezing point was measured. :( Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That picture had been used in the radon article at some point, but was then rejected as failing NFCC because it doesn't actually have the subject visible (probably policy point #8 is the key). DMacks (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes you right the filename was Radon,_"Matter",_Ralph_E._Lapp_and_the_editors_of_LIFE,_LIFE_Science_Library,_1965.jpg (jeez!) HAt 07:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

So the images of the other noble gases do fairly show those gasses, even though they are all described as colourless? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Plasma. HAt 12:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

And free beats non-free if the appropriateness is comparable in a given context. DMacks (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Is surveillance camera footage public domain in Lebanon?

Is this video in the public domain? (for usage on 2024 Lebanon pager explosions) FunLater (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: Looks like someone is recording the CC-TV video with some kind of handheld camera. Not sure if this affects copyright or not. - Sebbog13 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This should not affect the copyright, as since the only intention of the recording is to capture the CCTV video itself, the recording is entirely a derivative work, similar to commons:Template:PD-Art. Sdkb ^talk 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Like many things in Lebanon, the legal status of CCTV footage and its public accessibility is not clearly defined, leading to ambiguity regarding whether such footage is considered public domain. The Electronic Transactions and Personal Data Law (Law No. 81) provides some protections for personal data but does not address the public's right to freely publish CCTV footage. Prodrummer619 (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking into it, and taking into account Prodrummer's comment above, it seems we can probably use it tagged with commons:Template:PD-Automated. I've uploaded it at File:CCTV video of pager explosion in a Beirut market.webm. Sdkb ^talk 15:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks! FunLater (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

HGTV logo - threshold of originality

File:HGTV Canada.png is currently tagged as non-free, but had a notice placed on it in 2023 flagging it as needing review for a free license. A long-term paid editor has been using IP sockpuppets to try to replace it with File:HGTV Canada logo.png, which they uploaded to Commons and tagged as not meeting the threshold of originality for copyright. I have been blocking the socks but they may be correct about the logo's copyright status: it is a common typeface and simple shapes other than a maple leaf. If the logo is copyright-free, what's the right procedure to replace it? Can the original file simply be tagged and transferred to Commons, or does a new file need to be uploaded? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: If the Commons file is kept, then you can simply replace the local file with the Commons file; the local file will then most likely end up deleted per WP:F5. You could also tag the local file for speedy deletion per WP:F8 if you want as long as it qualifies. If the Commons file isn't kept, then you can just keep treating the local file as non-free or perhaps argue that it should be relicensed as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} if the reason it isn't kept is because it's still protected in Canada even though its PD in the US. For reference, c:COM:TOO Canada and c:COM:TOO US are pretty close, and the three individual elements of the logo seem (IMO) to be ineligible for copyright protection on the own. The question is then whether combined together they're eligible for copyright protection as a set. I would say no given c:Category:Maple leaves in logos of Canada, but others on Commons might feel differently. As for the socking, that's not really related to image copyright and you take care of that just like you would with any other socking; moreover, the Commons DR won't care about the socking here on Wikipedia if the image is OK to host. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Mustang_Challenge_2024_logo.jpg

I was using this logo File:Mustang_Challenge_2024_logo.jpg in the article Mustang Challenge. The JJMC89 bot removed it as a violation. Wasn't clear why. I did clean up the info attached to the image. So maybe it's OK? Did not want to revert the deletion without understanding better.

Thx.

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You identified your error and changed the article you want to use the image in. The issue now, and this isn't a bot issue, is that you have already added one non-free image File:Mustang Challenge logo.png) to Mustang Challenge and now you want to add a second. That's falling foul of WP:NFCC#3a (minimal use of non-free material). You need to come up with a compelling rationale as to why the second image adds significant additional information, and isn't just decorative material. Nthep (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, the two logos identify separate things: the competition series and one year's event. I could, of course, create a separate article for each. But for now there isn't enough content to justify separate articles, IMHO. So ... is the argument that every time such a situation occurs we have to split the articles?

-- MC 47.220.5.216 (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The argument is that non-free use is to kept as minimal as possible; in other words, a new article shouldn't be created just to so a non-free image can be used there, but should be created because the subject is Wikipedia notable regardless of whether it includes any images. The single use of a non-free image in any article is already considered quite an exception to WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and can be fairly hard to justify; so, the use of additional non-free images or additional uses of the same non-free image is seen as being even more exceptional and even harder to justify. In my opinion, I think you're going to be hard pressed to establish a consensus at WP:FFD in favor of using any non-free image in Mustang Challenge#2024 competition unless you're able to find quite a bit of sourced critical commentary about the logo itself (its creation, design, meaning, etc.) and add that content to the article. If whatever you try to add about the logo to the article can just as easily be understood by readers without seeing the logo, then its use most likely would be seen as failing WP:NFC#CS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow the logic, but whatever the consensus is I'll follow. Ultimately you can follow any topic without a logo showing at all. The whole point of showing any logo is just so the reader can quickly identify the subject being discussed. Ultimately one has to decide if that is an appropriate justification or not. I'm not a lawyer so I cannot say. But I don't follow the logic in saying there is a maximum number of logos in an article (other than zero). That would depend on the specific topic and sub-topics (though I certainly understand the wisdom in suggesting thinking carefully about using multiple logos).

Anyway, thanks.

-- Mcorazao (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mcorazao it gets complicated but behind it all is Wikipedia's stated purpose of being free and reusable. Non-free content isn't reusable so the policy is deliberately restrictive to keep the amount of non-free content down. The English Wikipedia follows that policy, others don't and simply do not allow any non-free content. Nthep (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Images removed from List of ocean liners

A bot has removed 2 images from the list of ocean liners. Both of these images are used in the pages for the respective ships. What's the issue here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Those were not free-to-use images and were used under fair use only. There was no fair use rationale (FUR) for that page, so the bot remove the use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

In addition, non-free images are pretty much never allowed to be used to illustrate individual entries of list articles per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES. So, adding a non-free use rationale to each file's page for its use in that particular article will likely stop the bot, but it won't make the use Wikipedia non-free content use policy compliant, and they'll still likely be removed via WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Mavis Wheeler

Hi - I've written an article about Draft: Mavis Wheeler, which is waiting for review. I'd like to add some images, but I'm not sure how to do this. I've identified a photo and a painting which I think are OK in terms of licensing, but it would be great if someone could confirm this. One is this photo (https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/use-this-image/?mkey=mw52747) which I've downloaded. The painting is this one (https://www.wikiart.org/en/augustus-john/mavis-wheeler-1945). It would be helpful if someone could guide me through the process. Thanks in advance. Blackballnz (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Blackballnz: Just for refrence, adding images to your draft will not impact whether it's ultimately accepted in any way; so, perhaps it might be best to wait until after the draft has been approved before worrying about images. If you still feel the need to add images to the draft, you can only use freely licensed or public domain images at this point because non-free content can't be used in drafts. The Wikiart painting you linked to described at "fair use", which means that it seems it's going to need to be treated as non-free content for Wikipedia purposes. If you want to know whether it's truly "fair use" and still under copyright protection, though, you will need to learn more about its provenance. Assuming that the work originated in the UK and given the Wheeler died in 1970 according to your draft, the painting is most likely still under copyright protection until January 1, 2041, per c:COM:UK because the UK extends copyright protection for 70 years post mortem auctoris, but you might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC.

The copyright ownership of the image of Wheeler herself is claimed by the National Portrait Gallery, London; however, whether that's really the case is unclear because the NPG has in the past tried to claim copyright over public domain works it has digitalized, but this wasn't considered a valid claim by either the Wikimedia Foundation or courts in both the US and UK. So, whether that photo needs to be treated as non-free content depends on its "real" provenance since it almost certainly isn't an original work created by the NPG. If the original photo either was never registered for copyright protection or its copyright protection has expired (or wasn't formally renewed), the photo could be in the public domain regardless of what the NPG is claiming. If, for example, the "author" of the photo is anonymous and the photo was first "published" in 1939, it seems like it would've entered into the public domain on January 1, 2010. If the "author" is known, it would enter into the public domain 70 years post mortem auctoris. This too is probably something you should ask about at COM:VPC.

If it turns out that both photos are still under copyright protection and need to be treated as non-free content, uploading them now will only lead to their speedy deletion. So, once the draft has been approved as an article, you can either come back here or go to WT:NFCC and ask about them again.

Finally, and this is unrelated to image copyright, you're aware of Anthony Vivian, 5th Baron Vivian#Mavis Wheeler, right? I'm only bringing this up because if Wheeler's primary claim to Wikipedia notability is her shooting of Vivian, then there might not be a strong justification for a stand-alone article about her per WP:ONEEVENT. Your draft is essentially a WP:SPLIT/WP:SPINOFF from the Vivian article; so, you might want to propose doing so at Talk:Anthony Vivian, 5th Baron Vivian to see what others might think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this, it's far more complicated than I expected. I'll take your advice and leave the images for now, until I hear whether my draft is accepted. I agree that Wheeler's primary claim to notability is her shooting of Vivian, but there are also other aspects to her which I've outlined. I'll also post on the Talk:Anthony Vivian, 5th Baron Vivian page. Blackballnz (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Keep_local#RfC:_Limit_usage_of_this_template_to_files_which_are_fully_or_partly_own_work for your input. Thanks, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Case Unclosed title card.jpg

Any opinions on whether the updated version of File:Case Unclosed title card.jpg needs to remain licensed as non-free? The originally uploaded version certainly did, and it should be deleted per WP:F5, but the update version seems simple enough for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} per c:COM:TOO US even if it's still protected per c:COM:TOO Philippines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

How brief is brief?

Hello!

I just fixed up a quote in Zzyzx (film) per MOS:QUOTE, but I also noticed that the quotes in the reception section are somewhat long, and I'm not sure if directly quoting this long of a text is necessary.

Would this be considered a Copyvio? The non-free content page says that quotes should be brief, and I'm not sure it counts as such. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

About 220 words. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Upload a picture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want to upload this image of Soviet chemist Tserevitinov, who died before 1947 and is clearly younger in the photo. I do not know anything about the author, but that is also the case with say Sergey Vavilov, shot around the same time and the author is unknown. What condition of the Russian public domain is it satisfying? Also can I use it to upload the image I proposed? Thanks, ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

As I read Template:PD-Russia, if you argue #2, Commons might accept it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Indeed, but I see many of the photos, including say Lenin is that the authors most probably did not publish this anonymously or under a pseudonym, but it is us who don't know who they are and when they died. Does it still qualify? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 13:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the people on Commons have a better answer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Copyright inquiry

Hello,

I am wondering whether or not I can upload this image of the Idaho statesman Edward J. Curtis. The site has given an attribution to an external page that appears to be inaccessible, and I am unable to locate where the picture originally comes from.

Thanks,

Solo4701 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Since Curtis died in 1895, I think any photo taken of him almost certainly would no longer be eligible for copyright protection regardless of what the City of Boise or SVguide.com is saying and is probably OK to upload under a {{PD-US-expired}} or a {{PD-old-assumed}} license. I doubt either website is the "author" of the photo and most likely what they're trying to do is claim copyright over a digitalized version of the photo (see Copyfraud) for more. Generally, anything published in the US prior to January 1, 1929, is no longer eligible for copyright protection. If you can figure out more about the provenance of the photo (who took, when they took it, when they died, etc.), then that could help in sorting this out. The date of first publication is important to try and figure out, and this can be hard with photos found online since usually not a lot of information is given about them or their copyright status. FWIW, the photo can be seen used here in the July 2002 archived version of a Sun Valley Guide 2002 Summer article, but there's zero information on its provenance. Most likely the City of Boise just got the photo from the SVG site and attributed it the source of the photo (regardless of the file's copyright status) because whoever manages the city's website just wanted to avoid any possible problems with the SVG. I'm fairly certain the writer of the SVG article got the image from somewhere else and has no valid claim of copyright ownership over it. You might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC, or try a Google Images or TinEye reverse image search to see whether you can find out any more information about the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for your input. I was mainly concerned about whether or not someone could claim copyright over a picture of an old picture, like you pointed out with them potentially making a claim over the digitalized version. Solo4701 (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Would you happen to know about this one; whether or not I can upload it? They claim that the image is under copyright yet it also states that it is from "1920–1929." Solo4701 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Solo4701: I think this would be a good question to ask at c:COM:VPC. I don't think it should be eligible for copyright protection just because it has been digitalized or is found online; however, it could be eligible for copyright protection for other reasons depending upon where it was first published. Since the work is described as a pamphlet, it probably meets the definition of publication applied to such things under US copyright law at the time (assuming it was first published in the US). Copyright on works first published in the US is 95 years after the date of first publication (plus 1 year); so, anything first published prior to January 1, 1929, would be considered to be within the public domain, but anything first published within 1929 itself will not enter into the public domain until January 1, 2025. Even if it was first published in 1929, another possibility could be that the work is no longer eligible for copyright protection because it wasn't first published with a visible copyright notice, which was required by US copyright law at the time. There doesn't seem to be any such notice visible on the version of entire pamphlet you can read via that website; moreover, even if there was such a notice, it could still be no longer eligible for copyright protection because its copyright wasn't formally renewed prior to January 1, 1963, which was also required by US copyright law at the time. So, there could be several reasons why this particular pamphlet is possibly within the public domain per c:COM:HIRTLE, which is why I suggest asking about it at Commons. Another option would be to simply email the SAADA website and ask by what basis it's claiming copyright ownership over the image. Of course, it might not respond, but you might gain some insight into its thought process regarding image copyright if it does (i.e. whether its claim is based on US copyright law or other assumptions). -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Well-written response. Thanks; I'll give your suggestions a try. Solo4701 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

"Like No Other Night" cover art

I'm wondering whether there's enough creativity in File:38 Special - Like No Other Night.jpg to push it above c:COM:TOO US. It seems fairly simply to me, but I'd like some feedback from others just as a precaution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think PD-Simple will apply to this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

PD-font?

The {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} licenses being used for File:LibertinusSansEg.png, File:LibertinusSerifEg.png, File:Libertinus Fonts.png and File:LibertinusSerifEg.png seem incorrect, but it might be OK to relicense these files as {{PD-simple}} or as c:Template:PD-font per c:COM:FONT. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable to me, as these are mere raster images. The only question I see would be the textual copyright on the example sentence in all those languages, but I suspect that these are long established as a typographical example text. Felix QW (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this. I am happy to accept your actions. Wujastyk (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Added this Flickr intel implosion aftermath

Wikipedia owners, I put the image from flickr i dont know who made it but the person who posted this upload this from Flickr any tips to remove this removal date? For legal purposeSaolqui2 (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Saolqui2 I'm not sure what you're asking. There is a WP-article on the building at Intel Shell. Are you trying to add a pic from [1] to the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Fwiw, I uploaded one of those pics (they were CC BY-SA 2.0) and put it in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, btw see the intel Shell page Saolqui2 (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Creative commons images with watermarks or copyright labels.

I understand that such images are undesirable on Wikipedia. But is it acceptable to use such images if the label or watermark is cropped out with the crop tool? Bloopityboop (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bloopityboop. Commons and Wikipedia are, in principle, separate projects, and this means sometimes their policies and guidelines can be different. WP:WATERMARK, c:COM:Watermarks and m:Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images all cover this, and it seems cropping out visible watermarks is allowed as long as the original information is retained in some way; for example, adding information about the watermark to the file's description assuming that the file is otherwise released by its copyright holder under an acceptable free license. Since a crop in and of itself typically isn't considered sufficient in terms of creative to establish a new copyright for the cropper, it wouldn't be your c:COM:Own work per se. You should be on the lookout for indications of license laundering when it comes to images you find online; it's probably OK, though, as long as the original copyright holder is releasing the image under a license accepted by Commons, and you follow its terms. Images which seem to be clearly within the public domain, on the other hand, might be easier to deal with since the watermark/copyright claim probably pertains to a digitalized version of the image and the WMF and many countries/courts don't seem to recognize such claims as being valid. If you really want to be 100% sure, though, you might want to seek outside input from someone who specializes in image copyright law (i.e. a lawyer) before uploading anything. Nobody on Wikipedia and Commons can't really give legal advice per WP:NOLEGAL; so, you might have to take anything posted at face value and seek more definitive answers somewhere else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

A Random SVG I find on Logopedia

I am using the phoenix fire-themed logo of RTP2 (used in 2002-2004) for the page "RTP2". Obviously not mine, but which tag should I put here? -- Sellena8053 (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sellena8053. Sites like Logopedia are generally not good sources for images because they seem to mostly host user-generated content that provide little information on the provenance of the image, might not be totally accurate and also might not licensed correctly. For this reason, it's much better to use official sources (i.e. sources maintained by the original copyright holder) or sources closely removed from the original copyright (e.g. a major media website) whenever possible. SVGs, in particular, can pose problems because it seems to be unclear whether the vectorization of an image is in and off itself a considered sufficiently creative to establish a claim of copyright for the vector version in addition to the claim of copyright for the original image; in other words, there could possibly be two copyrights belonging to two different copyright holders to assess.

Personally, I think all the logos being used in the article RTP2 are incorrectly licensed and in need of reassessment over on Commons; it's quite possible that some of them might be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO, but the Creative Commons licenses used for them seem wrong because only the copyright holders of the logos can release them as such.

In the case of File:RTP2 Phoenix Logo (2002-2004).svg, the Creative Commons license you chose is also incorrect in my opinion and Wikipedia isn't going to be able to keep this logo under such a license unless you can clearly show it has been released as such by its copyright holder, obtain the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder, or it's considered to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO US. A plain number "2" logo would be more than simple enough to be ineligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, but the addition "flame" element might be just enough to push make eligible for such protection (like File:Hot Wheels logo-en.svg). Another possibility would be to re-license the image as non-free content and many logos you see in Wikipedia articles are licensed as such; however, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive, particularly when it comes to former logos, and it might be hard to justify the non-free use of such a logo in the way you'd like to use it.

My suggestion to you would be to first find a better source for the logo than Logopedia, and then perhaps re-license the file as {{Non-free logo}} and use {{Non-free use rationale logo}} for non-free use rationale if you really feel you can justify the file's use per relevant Wikipedia policy. Others might feel differently and offer other suggestion, but I think this logo may need to be treated as non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Fair Use

1) I have noticed a picture of unknown origin published in the Hebrew Wikipedia with the claim of Fair Use. Google translate: https://he-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%97%22%D7%9C_%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F?_x_tr_sl=iw&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=sv&_x_tr_pto=wapp#/media/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5%3A%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%B4%D7%9C_%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%99_%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F.jpg

2) I have seen an image of the cover of a book, published on Amazon (42 kb). https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Versus-Jibril-Thirty-Year-Terrorist/dp/1557784337/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2MXETBZK3ZWI5&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.fQRG6uD_64VgjvSUIIUtFQ.ja89ZiMWeY6K0SH0wWeCpn3_a77BU_9np2D4tL9H0cY&dib_tag=se&keywords=israel+versus+jibril&qid=1727973945&sprefix=israel+versus+jibril%2Caps%2C912&sr=8-1

I would like to use these images in English Wikipedia but find this concept of Fair Use far too complicated for me to judge. Is there anyone on Wikipedia who could help me with this? Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jokkmokks-Goran. Each of the various language Wikipedias are, in principle, separate projects with their own respective policies and guidelines, and their own respective communities; so, what's being done on Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't really matter when it comes to English Wikipedia. Many of the Wikipedias allow "fair use" content to be uploaded and used as long as doing so complies with their policies and guidelines. On English Wikipedia, such content is referred to as non-free content and its use is governed by Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. English Wikipedia's policy has been intentionally set up to be more restrictive that the US practice of fair use, and there are ten criterion that each use of non-free content needs to meet for it to be considered acceptable. When it comes to copyrighted book covers, they can generally be uploaded and use per item 1 of WP:NFCI when they're used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone Wikipedia articles about the books they represent; however, uses in other ways or in other types of articles can be much harder to justify. So, if you can provide more information on which article you want to use the book cover you linked to above, perhaps someone can give you a rough assessment as to whether it would be OK to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Album cover art

I'm not sure whether the album cover File:Dan Mangan - Being Elsewhere Mix.png needs to be licensed as non-free content. It's bascially a picture of a CD in its case, and each element seems pretty utilitarian; moreoverr, there's nothing really creative per se on the CD's face (it's just the artist's name and the album's title). The label that released this album is Arts & Crafts Productions based out of Canada. Given that c:COM:TOO Canada is said to be close to c:COM:TOO US, this seems like it should be OK as {{PD-simple}} or something like that and moved to Commons. Any opinions as to whether this needs to remain non-free? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Book covers

I followed Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images to get a non-free image of the cover of Leonardo da Vinci (Isaacson book) but this got removed. Could someone help me with this? I have never uploaded a non-free image before :) ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Panamitsu. All files uploaded to Wikipedia require two things: (1) information about the file's provenance and (2) a copyright license. For non-free files like the one you uploaded, (1) essentially becomes a non-free use rationale, and a non-free use rationale is required for each use of the file. Since you didn't add a non-free use rationale for the use in the article about the Isaacson book, a bot removed the file. If you want to stop that bot from removing the file again, you will need to add a non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page. I suggest you use the {{Non-free use rationale book cover}} template because it's fairly easy to use for such files. Go to the file page's "Summary" section, and click "edit". Add the template syntax for the missing rationale (right above the syntax for the copyright license) and fill in the parameters (there's information on how to do this on the template's documentation page), and then click "Show preview"; if everything looks OK, click "Publish changes". -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi thanks for the help Marchjuly. I think I've got it working now. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Panamitsu: The rationale you added is, in principle, fine, but it's much better to try and fill in as many parameters as possible. So, assuming that you just didn't conjure that book cover image out of thin air, it had to come from somewhere. Please add the |source= parameter to the syntax of the non-free use rationale you added, and then fill in that parameter with the link to whichever website you found the image on. If you know any of the parameters, you should also add them and fill them in accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh right. I've now filled in the source parameter and a view others. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Ken (magazine)

Hi, Could someone please check if the copyright of this magazine was renewed? I couldn't find anything, but better check twice. If not, the image could be on Commons in high resolution. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Question about File:Minnesota Golden Gophers hockey logo.svg

I recently added File:Minnesota Golden Gophers hockey logo.svg as the logo for all the Minnesota women's hockey seasons. User:JJMC89 bot reverted all of those edits today. I (now) understand why the bot did that -- The hockey logo is asserted as a non-free logo, and there's no non-free rationale for all of those pages.

However, since the University of Minnesota is a state institution, aren't all of its logos taxpayer-funded, and therefore in some form or fashion public domain? Honestly asking so I can learn something. --MikeVitale 05:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

MikeVitale, your assumption is incorrect. If you go to the University of Minnesota's website and scroll to the bottom, you will see © 2024 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Works of the US federal government are generally in the public domain, but each state establishes its own copyright policies. Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Okie dokie, then. Thanks for the info. --MikeVitale 05:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)