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)

Is YouTube video's thumbnails licensed under Creative Commons?

Is YouTube video's thumbnails licensed under Creative Commons? The thumbnails is not a screen capture from the video itself as the scene does not appear anywhere but the video itself is under licensed under Creative Commons, in short the thumbnails is a photo taken separate from the video but used because it's related.

For context, I'm referring to the Infobox image currently used in Aespa. File:20201209 에스파 aespa SBS Radio.png is the previous image used before it get replaced by current one, the previous image is screenshot from the source itself while the current one is saved from the source's thumbnail that was displayed in the search results.

From my understanding, the video's thumbnails is not licensed Creative Commons, only the video itself is. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: If it was the autogenerated thumbnail, it is from the video itself so that would be under CC-BY, but since the thumbnail is a substantial edit, like you I’m hesitant to say that is also under CC-BY since that YouTube does not state if the thumbnail is under CC-BY (if the video is under CC-BY). Moreover, this is from South Korea which has a different IP regime from the US, so it would be likely that the video and thumbnail will be considered a different work. However, this issue is moot: the original image has been replaced back by ones taken directly from the video. - 49.144.214.48 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@49.144.214.48 Yes, the image in question has been deleted as that is a reupload of the exactly same image which was deleted previously. The current image used in the article is from the video itself while the now deleted image which was taken from the thumbnail of the search results and maybe also from the radio show's official instagram post (account can be verified by matching it against the radio show's official website and scrolling down 인스타그램 section (the one with red section), clicking any image which would open up Instagram, clicking the profile name, and which would return the same profile of which by comparing the URL) even though OP of the now deleted image said it is from YouTube but who knows when it is exactly the same. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Something along these lines came up recently on Wikimedia Commons regarding the same video. I responded that I believed that the title card and thumbnail were the same image in this case, that the title card was displayed (at the start of the video with autoplay off) with the licence below it (implying it is subject to the licence), and that the thumbnail was not creatively different than the title card (a scaled copy of the same image, so the Bridgeman v. Corel reasoning that a faithful copy is not a newly copyrightable work seems relevant). TheFeds 06:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheFeds Please read my reply to IP above, which I assumed you already did. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I read that post; but what about it? I think your contention is that the video's thumbnail is not subject to the CC licence of the video (and therefore was correctly deleted). By contrast, my contention is that in this case (where the thumbnail is the title card, and the title card is displayed with the CC licence), it would be reasonable to treat the thumbnail as being subject to the CC licence (and therefore it was not necessary to delete it). Consider a related question: is the description text of that video available under CC BY? I say yes, because YouTube displays the licence below the description text when you click "show more", and doesn't say the licence is restricted to the video content itself. So if the text is under CC BY, why not also the title card and therefore the thumbnail too? TheFeds 06:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Custom thumbnails are handled differently from auto-generated thumbnails, in addition, YouTube CC licensing page already explictly stated that CC licensed can only be applied to videos only. Custom thumbnails are not videos as you can only upload image-format file. In addition, there is no such thing as title card, the image that was displayed before the video file was loaded is the same image as the custom thumbnails displayed in the search result but upsized/upscaled. Of course, like you say, can only be partially seen if for whatever reason the user decided to disable autoplay, which of course, YouTube doesn't offer such functionality anywhere its settings hence this isn't the intended behavior that the developer of YouTube wanted to show to users. You can only force your browser to do that either via vanilla/built-in method through the browser settings (Edge/Chrome/Chromium and Firefox have such functionality, not sure for others) or downloading extension/addons. Even if you, force your browser either via means, the actual video file would still be loaded on top the custom thumbnails, blocking the 95% custom thumbnails, which means the custom thumbnails are not compiled/embed/joined/combined/fused with the video.

In addition, if you are pro-user with browser's developer tools, then you can use the network tools to check which loads first, and also blocking the video file from loading, which means only the upscaled/upsized custom thumbnails would be loaded, meaning they are separated files which brings me back to my 1st sentence of which custom thumbnails are not videos nor are they anywhere near to being one. Even if you download, the entire video, you still don't get the custom thumbnails. Stating the obvious, you would of course get auto-generated thumbnails if the video uses auto-generated thumbnails because auto-generated thumbnails are from the video itself. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

My core contention is that where there is a licence notice displayed, users are entitled to presume that licence applies to content that is contextually related to the notice, and which appears to be offered by the copyright owner. My secondary contention is that if any user can be served with the title card image in conjunction with the licence, using reachable code that was deliberately written by YouTube to do this, the licence is given.

Regarding the statement that "YouTube CC licensing page already explictly stated that CC licensed can only be applied to videos only", the version of the answer page that I currently see (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468) refers interchangeably to "your video" and "your work". I agree your interpretation is possible. But there are multiple reasonable possible interpretations such as:

1. "Video" is the general term YouTube uses for the entire set of content served with a unique YouTube v= URL, comprising the video file, the title, the description, and associated images (whether selected by the uploader or selected automatically)—in other words the uploader-generated portion of the web page. The licence applies to all of it.
2. The answer is not a complete statement of the legal effects of placing a conspicuous notice of licensure on or adjacent to a work. (For example, their statement "Creative Commons licenses can only be used on 100% original content." is not literally true, both in a legal sense, and in a technical sense related to the actual functions of the website; some degree of interpretation is therefore necessary to understand the intended meaning of "video" in the statement.)
3. Your current understanding of the issue.

I can't say for certain whether one or more of these are correct. We should assess the merits of each, and consider the effects (on Wikipedia and elsewhere).

With regard to the statement that the no-autoplay functionality is not intended by YouTube, and therefore cannot be relied upon, I disagree. That would require that the YouTube codebase not even offer the title card when the client rejects the autoplay for any foreseeable reason. It was likely a deliberate user interface choice to fall back to showing the title card when some exception occurs that causes the autoplay script to fail. Developing modern Internet content requires designers of websites to be aware of quirks in the way a given client will render the page, and just because quirk-related code is triggered, does not render the scenario invalid. And in any case, if the developer knew this was a problem, they could have triggered an error message, or suppressed displaying the licence message until the video content plays.

To use a very simplistic example, if a website displayed an empty black page to most users, but when a certain code condition is triggered, it would instead display a copyrightable work and text suggesting a licence, I would contend that as long as it is possible for that code to be reached by a user or the user's web client, the licence should be considered given. With a CC BY licence, once the licence is given to any person, the licence is in effect given to everyone not barred from using the licence (because CC BY licences permit redistribution). I would leave it up to the copyright holder to argue in legal proceedings the difficult proposition that because no person capable of consenting to the licence ever in fact triggered the code to read and consent, the licence was never given. There are some interesting theoretical considerations because there are some edge cases, but I judge the practical relevance to be small, and the risks low. TheFeds 10:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I however interpret YouTube answers differently from you.

1. Section 1 (Creative Commons): Quote "YouTube allows creators to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license. If you've marked your video with a CC BY license, you retain your copyright. Other creators get to reuse your work subject to the terms of the license." — Clearly stated as videos, even though they changed it to your work in 3rd sentence, my interpretation of your work is relation to earlier sentence. This is actually perfectly normal and common to write it as such even if you want to take legal into account ... many legal documents are written as such.
2. Section 2 (Creative Commons on YouTube): Quote paragraph 1 "The ability to mark uploaded videos with a Creative Commons license is available to all creators." — Yet again, this is repeated in which uploaded videos is clearly stated. Unless I'm blind, I don't see the word "image". Quote paragraph 3 "Creative Commons licenses can only be used on 100% original content. If there's a Content ID claim on your video, you cannot mark your video with the Creative Commons license." – Yet again, video is repeated here ... reading just the 1st sentence while ignoring the 2nd sentence, Big NO NO.
3. Section 3 (What's eligible for a Creative Commons license): Quote "You can only mark your uploaded video with a Creative Commons license if it's all content that you can license under the CC BY license. Some examples of such licensable content are: Your originally created content, Other videos marked with a CC BY license, and Videos in the public domain." – Yet again, video is repeated here. Oh ... reading just the bullet points while ignoring the preceding sentence, once again a Big NO NO. Similarly to P1, my interpretation of original created content is relation to the preceding sentence, which again is perfectly normal and common to write it as such even if you want to take legal into account ... many legal documents are written as such.

Tldr, I disagree with your POV/interpretation, which is perfectly okay. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hebrew logos

Do files such as File:New Economic Party logo.svg need to be treated as {{non-free logo}}? This seems like it would be at least {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} as a simple text logo in the US, but not sure about c:COM:TOO Israel. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

As an image it would be PD-textlogo. So a .png file would be PD. The shading is just linear fading, so nothing copyrightable. But the .svg has a code that may be copyrightable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme Bartlett. If the svg is copyrightable, then this would fail NFCC#1 in my opinion because a non-vector version of the same logo could be uploaded instead. I say "if" because even though I'm aware of c:COM:SVG#Copyright and WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions, over the past couple of years I've seen lots of non-free pngs and jpegs being converted to svgs based upon WP:IUP#FORMAT. I guess it might not matter much if both the vector and non-vector versions are non-free, but the vector version would seem to technically be a bit more non-free if the svg code is copyrightable. Those doing these conversions, however, seem to feel that the vector version code isn't eligible for a separate copyright on its own regardless. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

If someone gets a free .png and then converts it to a .svg, then they can release that .svg under the same license. If they use an automated tool to create to do it, it is less clear that they have added any new copyrightable material. And copyright may be partly attributed to the tool/software they used. Hopefully any software we use does not add any copyright to images. If the .svg was coded by hand then the coder could claim a copyright. For your case I think it was inkscape that created the file. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for the info Graeme Bartlett. I tried looking for a png version of the logo, but was unable to find one. I thought the party it represents might have an official website, but have had no look so far. This file's description states it was received by email, but nothing more. Perhaps the uploader Sokuya can further clarify things. If the only reason this file is non-free is because it's an svg, then there's no way to keep it per WP:FREER since a non-vector version would serve the same purpose and not be protected by copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the party had a website before the election, now archived by Wayback Machine. During the 2020 Israeli election I tried to update Wikipedia with all the new parties logos in svg format (because its better than png). So I contacted the parties and told them I want to upload it to Wikipedia, I ask them to sent it, in other cases I just extracted it from PDF files (ads in newspapers, party's platform etc) or took it straight from parties' websites (when available). In this case, they sent me the logo however I also found it later in their platform file. I uploaded it to Wikipedia as fair use because I don't well familar with all the copyrights and I know that logos can be uploads as fair use for Infobox propose. The file also exists in Hebrew Wikipedia. Hope that helps. Sokuya (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Image for Jive Records

I recently uploaded this File: Jive Grammy nominees 2000.jpeg for use in the article Jive Records. I was notified it does not meet Criterion 8 of the non-free content criteria. I have since edited the rationale to include “This ad displays Jive’s most well-known acts: Britney Spears, *NSYNC, Backstreet Boys, and R. Kelly. This image is necessary to the article, which documents Jive’s history and reputation as one of the biggest record labels at that time and a former power player in the music business.” Is this sufficient to meet Criterion 8? Spectrallights (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Spectrallights: Sorry, but I agree the image does not meet the non-free criteria. This image clearly does not comply with WP:NFCC#8 because it is not increase the readers' understand of the topic. That is already explained well in prose. The lack of the image is not detrimental to the reader's understanding. There is no need for this image because the prose already tells you what "Jive’s most well-known acts" are. Any freely licensed image of those same artists could serve the very same purpose that you claim. ww2censor (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Article tag for upcoming public domain images?

I am working on a stub for the German photographer Draft:Else Thalemann. I noticed that many of her images will be become PD in the next five years or so; for example. Do we have any kind of tag that can be used to remind future editors that images will be available soon(ish)? --- Possibly ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Still interested in the general question of whether we have a tag for the above, but I just discovered that for Thalemann it is going to be another 35 years before she hits PD in Germany. --- Possibly ☎ 01:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July 20 § Henry Kulka images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of images from '49, 52, '67, '70, '77 & '81 GLC elections

As the title suggests, the bot has removed images of some of the leaders from the London County Council & Greater London Council election pages. The reason given is apparently because of WP:NFCC violations. This seems strange given the fact that all the images I've added were not uploaded by me and are actually taken from their respective wiki pages (they long-standing additions to the pages). For example, the bot removed the image of Henry Brooke from the top of 1952 London County Council election, yet despite a claim of an WP:NFCC violation, it has not removed it from Henry Brooke's page. Is the bot's actions in error? Alssa1 (talk) 09:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Remember: the requirements for NFCC content are very different when you're talking about an article about an actual person for whom no free image is available, as opposed to some article in which they happen to appear. Looks to me like the bot is working exactly as it should. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alssa1: A non-free image requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use per WP:NFC#Implementation; so, if you’re going to add a non-free image to an article, it’s your responsibility per WP:NFCCE to add a corresponding non-free use rationale to the file’s page for said use. That’s almost certainly why the bot removed the files you added: you added the files to articles, but didn’t add corresponding non-free use rationales to the files’ pages. Even if you didn’t originally upload the file yourself, you still need to add a separate, specific non-free use rationale if you want to use the file in a separate article or in a separate way in the same article than given in the existing non-free use rationale already on the file’s page.

Now, even though adding a missing non-free use rationale may stop the bot from removing the files in question, it also may not be sufficient to justify a particular non-free use as explained here. Not all non-free uses are the same and not all justifications for non-free use apply the same way. In this case, it’s unlikely a consensus could be established for using the non-free images in election articles for the reasons given by Orange Mike above. There have been quite a number of discussions about similar images used in similar ways at WP:NFCR and WP:FFD over the years, and I can’t remember any in which a consensus was established in favor of such non-free use. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Image on Good Day (Tally Hall song)

The image was used for Marvin's Marvelous Mechanical Museum (album) without issues, why is there an issue— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanstone2 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dylanstone2: Not all image uses are equivalent as somewhat explained here, and a non-free image requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each of its individual uses as explained here. Non-free album cover art is generally considered OK when used for primary identification purposes at the top of a stand-alone article about the album it represents per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but other types of non-free uses are much harder to justify. Trying to album covers to identify songs appearing on the album is typically not considered OK, and it’s better to use cover art specific to the single itself instead. If no such cover art exists, it’s preferable to not use the album’s cover art by default. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Use of Berkelium(IV) oxide.jpg on Berkelium(IV) oxide page

File:Berkelium(IV) oxide.jpg was removed from berkelium(IV) oxide. Can somebody explain this? Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 01:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Keresluna There has to be a fair use rationale for each article that uses the image: right now, there's only one for Compounds of berkelium. Most of that rationale applies even more strongly for berkelium(IV) oxide, but the bot can't evaluate that. You should be able to copy-paste-modfiy to get to an appropriate rationale. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vahurzpu:Can you tell me how exactly to get to an appropriate rationale? Keres🌑(talk • ctb) 02:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

On the file page, you have a template for the use on Compounds of berkelium. You can copy and add that template to that page, but change out the "Compounds of berkelium" to "berkelium (IV) oxide". All the other info will be the same except you should change the rational entry in that template to why you need the image on that berkelium oxide page which should be a different reason (to an extent) of its use on the Compounds page. Once you do that you should be all good. --Masem (t) 02:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio SWACO Logo Dec 5 2019.jpeg

This seems simple enough per c:COM:TOO United States to be converted to {{PD-logo}} since typefaces and text logos are typically not considered eligible for copyright protection in the US per c:COM:FONT. The file was actually converted to PD by Stefan2 with this edit , but that was subsequntly reverted by Ɱ. Leaving the file as non-free does no harm per se, but it does limit the way the file might be possibly be used due to WP:NFCCP. If the file is converted to PD, the non-free use rationale should be replaced by {{Information}} so as to avoid the file being flagged by bots for a possible license conflict. The file should also be moved to Commons if converted to PD since there's no real need to keep it local for English Wikipedia use only. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is obviously a {{PD-textlogo}} as there is no copyright protection to fonts in the United States. However, it should also be tagged with {{opaque}}. I just discovered that there's a copy with transparent background at the company's website: [1]. The JPG could be replaced by that PNG. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

What to do if you can't find the copyright owner for a photo

Hi all,

I have been trying to find the copyright for the first black and white image on the following link: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2021/01/15/from-prison-to-freedom-flying-with-bangabandhu-to-independent-bangladesh/. At the bottom of the page with reference to copyright information it says "Every effort has been made by the author as well as the Editor of ‘South Asia @ LSE’ to identify the copyright holder of the 2 black & white photographs used in this post. LSE South Asia Centre will be happy to acknowledge the copyright holder in future updated versions if it is brought to our knowledge at [email protected]".

I have had a similar experience as LSE. I have tried contacting the Daily Star in Bangladesh which regularly publishes this photo around Independence Day but have had no success in tracking down the original copyright owner there. I have also contacted the RAF and Imperial War Museum since the photo was taken at an RAF station in Cyprus but again no trace of it. It was suggested to me that the original photo may have been lost during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

Any ideas on how I can proceed from here? As mentioned, this is an iconic photo that regularly circulates in the media in Bangladesh around Independence Day. Is it possible that the photo could be deemed to be in the Public Domain?

Thanks in advance for any insights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NaimMAli (talk • contribs) 12:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In this case where copyright applies but you don't know who is the owner, it is still illegal to copy or use it. Perhaps it could be used under fair use. But we would have to follow our own criteria. There is a bit of a difference between public domain, and "no one will sue you". The newspaper may not distinguish, but we do. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It could maybe be uploaded as Wikipedia:Non-free content with a wp:non-free use rationale. To avoid deletion it would need consensus that it is an iconic image, see wp:NFCI #8. Thincat (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

If this photo was uploaded as non free content, it would be quite hard in my opinion, to justify its use in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy if the image itself isn't really the subject of an sourced critical commentary per WP:NFC#CS. There are lots of photos taken of historic events, but that doesn't really make the photos themselves historic as explained here. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive by intent; so, while it might be possible to find a way to use this image that complies with such a policy, it seems as if it would be quite hard, at least at first glance. It seems unlikely that a stand-alone article could be written about the photo itself, and using it in Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Kamal Hossain (the two named persons in the photo) for primary identification purposes given that there are already quite a number of freely-licensed images used in both of those articles. There might be another article where this image could be justified, but I think that should be well-explored and sorted out before trying to upload this photo as non-free. If the non-free use is questionable, then the file is likely to end up nominated or tagged for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The other two people in the photo are also named - Air Commodore David B. Craig and Golam Mowla. I am in the process of writing a Wiki article for the latter, for whom there are no other widely circulated photos. If I were to upload the photo as non-free, would I still have to show that the photo has a copyright? My issue is that nobody I've reached out to seems to own the copyright, nor do they know of anyone who may have owned a copyright over the photo to begin with. NaimMAli (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@NaimMAli: Thank you for clarifying things a bit. Assuming that Draft:Golam Mowla someday becomes accepted as a Wikipedia article, it might be possible to use a non-free image of him for primary identification purposes in such an article per item 10 of WP:NFCI. However, it would probably be better to find another image whose provenance can be more clearly established to use instead of this one per WP:NFC#Sourcing; in other words, the more information provided about the actual origin of the image (e.g. who took it, when they took it, where they took it), the easier it becomes to assess its copyright status. There's no point in trying to upload any non-free image of Mowla at this point though because non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9. So, my suggesting to you would be to follow the guidance in WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts and first get an article about Mowla accepted by Wikipedia, and then worry about uploading a non-free image of him. If you try to add such an image to a draft, it will only end up being removed and then most likely end up deleted per WP:F5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, that's useful to know. I will focus on getting the article published first for now. NaimMAli (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Images with both public domain and CC-BY-SA licences

I am looking at some images of road signs (example) and noticed that the images have both a public domain license, and a Creative Commons license (CC-BY-SA). How can the images have two licenses when public domain is more permissive than the CC license? Also, most traffic signs seem to be in the public domain, doesn't that extend to depictions of traffic signs (like the ones made for Wikipedia/Commons)? 178.148.70.192 (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Some images may be photographs of signs in situ, with other stuff visible in the image. These would count as a derivative work, with the original sign being public domain only, but the rest and the way it was changed, say with lighting or angle or background adding the extra copyright. Also when it comes to .svg files, the appearance of the image can be public domain, but the code to make the .svg file can be copyrighted, perhaps with CC-BY license. For the example you give, I can click on original file; then right click view source to see the .svg code. The license is actually embedded in the file (but attribution is not obvious) and even to write ZONA involves about 20 lines of code. which is complex enough for copyright to apply. But if you copy the iamge to a .png, it would be public domain as that code is not included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) I think in this particular case it is being claimed that the sign itself is public domain and the artwork created by the uploader is CC. Such copying, if skilful, might attract copyright and Commons cares about the creator's country's copyright laws. I'm not saying this is necessarily a valid claim however. Thincat (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Another possibility is simply that the uploader doesn't know whether the public domain template is applicable—but they are willing to release it with a licence anyway.

To distinguish that situation from the examples presented by others, it is probably better to encapsulate copyright tags for different components of a work in a container like commons:Template:Copyright information (for example: File:Jade_cabbage_closeup.jpg offers several licences for the photo, and claims the object is PD). TheFeds 05:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Book covers and copyrights

A user has uploaded a photograph of their book cover to use in a draft article about themselves, Draft:Rich Brownstein the copyright doesn’t belong to him but he asks “what proof must I provide from the publisher that I have permission to use my cover page? How is that established and confirmed? “ I’m finding it very difficult to know where to point him for help with regards to this. It is my understanding that the image could be used to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of an article dedicated to the book in question, but not elsewhere? Theroadislong (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If the book cover is unfree, then the cover art can normally only be used in the article about the book. If the cover art can be freely licensed, see WP:CONSENT, c:COM:OTRS and {{di-no permission-notice}}. You may find that the one who wrote the book didn't make the cover and that the copyright to the cover belongs to the one who made the cover. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you I will convey that to them. Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Are local (city and county) flags in the United States really all PD?

Hello. I was looking at Washington state county flags on Commons and found File:Flag of Pierce County, Washington.svg. The license template on it is PD-GovEdict, which reads:

This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a U.S. local or state government. See § 313.6(C)(1) of Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments, public ordinances, and similar official legal documents."

Using this logic that a flag is really an edict, are all official local flags, e.g. King County's flag which is currently "fair use" on Wikipedia, public domain? This tag is on many state flags currently, such as File:Flag of Pennsylvania.svg, though they are almost all old enough to be way out of copyright regardless. However it seems like somewhat of a stretch; the quote really sounds to me like it's about the texts of laws:

The U.S. Copyright Office will not register a government edict that has been issued by any federal, state, local, or territorial government, including legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials.

What do you think; are county and city flags not copyrightable? DemonDays64 (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

@DemonDays64: Sounds like a stretch to me too. The Compendium (an advisory document, not a law) says later "a work that does not constitute a government edict may be registered" and provides an example of a work of graphic art, so clearly they are willing to distinguish between works of the state.

A piece of legislation or an official proclamation containing a sample of the flag (e.g. as an appendix, or something like this Canadian example) or a description of the flag (e.g. the U.S. Flag Acts) would be considered by the U.S. Copyright office to be an uncopyrightable edict per the advisory. Thereafter, a work which only duplicates or implements that uncopyrightable edict would not be a creative work. Is there in fact such an edict corresponding to your examples? Maybe the uploader knew of such a thing, but didn't cite it in the file description?

Note that there are some special cases, e.g. where state law does not allow the flag to be copyrighted (e.g. the flag of California, a work of government subject to the California Public Records Act). Another hypothetical special case is where an edict contains a flag image, but the legislative body doesn't own/doesn't have the power to define the copyright to the image; although the U.S. Copyright Office won't register the edict and its incorporated image, that doesn't mean they won't register the original copyrighted version of the flag to someone else.

And of course to be fully pedantic: just because they won't register something (take an administrative action in their discretion), doesn't mean that it isn't copyrightable (by application of statutory and case law, which supersedes the discretion of the Copyright Office). TheFeds 05:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

One additional question: How old are the average US flags? Copyrights lapse with time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sir Edward Crosbie Image

Please could someone tell me whether it would be permitted to use the image here [2] on this article Sir Edward Crosbie, 5th Baronet? Anne (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Which image? There are several images there. If you mean this image (claimed to be Sir Edward Crosbie according to Facebook), then also check File:John Perceval, 2nd Earl of Egmont by Thomas Hudson.jpg where the same painting is claimed to show a different person. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of a bummer! However, it would not be the first time an image is mistaken for someone else. But if the Egmont image was on the NPG catalogue, then a mistake is very unlikely. Back to the drawing board, then. Anne (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Stefan2 I can find no other alternative image for Crosbie, but the black and white image 12 of 52 of Carlow Jail, here: [3] is where he was incarcerated. Or it can be viewed, on the right, here: [4] May this be used within the article? Anne (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be useful to know if I may use the above-mentioned image? Anne (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Dewey Defeats Truman"

File:Deweytruman12.jpg, a copyrighted file, uploaded as a Non-free image, is currently used in 6 articles, including a featured article (Harry S. Truman). It is claimed to be copyrighted, per the Truman Library. Non-free policy#1 states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". But, I just found that we have three images on commons, of the same incident, in different angles, licenced as {{PD-USGov}}. Those are:

File	Current Truman Library link	Archived Truman Library link
File:Dewey Defeats Truman.jpg	[5] "Library unaware of any copyright claims"	No archived link, but the file was verified by an reviewer in 2014, "who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date."
File:Dewey Defeats Truman (AN-95-187) resized.jpg	[6] "Library unaware of any copyright claims"	[7] "Restrictions: Undetermined"
File:Truman Chicago Tribune.jpg	[8] "Library unaware of any copyright claims"	[9] "Restrictions: Unrestricted"

Now, either these three images are not free to be used, or the non-free file violates Non-free policy#1. What is the case here? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

commons:Template:PD-USGov is for works of the U.S. government, not pictures of members of the government. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that the photos hosted on Commons were taken by or for the U.S. government, so we should remove those tags as implausible.

Then, the reasons given in commons:Template:PD-because are insufficient to establish that the photo is in the public domain. That "[t]he Library is unaware of any copyright claims to this item" does not mean the same thing as if the library had stated that it conducted research and determined that there was no effective copyright in the work. Professed absence of knowledge of a fact does not equal a specific belief in the falsity of that fact. So we should remove those tags as implausible too.

That will probably result in those images being removed from Commons, so we should decide if there is a reasonable fair use claim to be made for any of them, and engineer the transfer back to English Wikipedia if so.

User:Leoboudv added a PD-USGov claim to a Commons image, so perhaps they can clarify their thinking. TheFeds 18:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheFeds – I agree. And if I am not wrong, these images are not a work of the U.S. Government, but of any newspapers or broadcasting agency. They might have copyrighted it, which may be still valid. I don't see any use in these three files being elevated on en.wikipedia as "Non-free" images, as 2 non free image of the same incident is excessive. So, should we start a deletion request? On another note, we have File:Bush Defeats Clinton (23552489610) (cropped).jpg (CC-by-SA-2.0 on Flickr), which too has the copyrighted image. Can it be considered De minimis?. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say a deletion request on Commons for the photos would be reasonable if a little research on the authorship and copyright of each of them turns up nothing. (Maybe a reverse image search will help?) Hypothetically, if the photos were by newspaper photographers who assigned their copyrights to the newspaper, and the newspaper published the photos in 1948, and the newspaper didn't properly handle copyright registration or renewal, the photos could have lapsed into the public domain in the U.S..

Separately, someone raised a good point at the fair use image's talk page: it probably isn't definitively the most iconic photo of this event. There were lots of photos of this event, and if our fair use rationale asserts that this photo is special ("this has become one of the most famous photos ever taken"), we should probably endeavour to be correct. TheFeds 19:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

TheFeds and Kavyansh.Singh, I found the current place that the Truman Library hosts one of these files ([10]). The only thing they now say about it is that "The Library is unaware of any copyright claims to this item; use at your own risk." That does not indicate that it is public domain, so I think their deletion from Commons is warranted and will probably pull together deletion requests for all three of them. If someone wants to claim that the image is PD, they are going to have to find out who the photographer was, when and where it was first published, and whether a copyright on it was registered in accordance with the formalities of the time. We can't just presume "If we can't find something it must not be there", an assertion of PD must actually demonstrate that the image is PD, not just handwave at it. That said, six uses of a nonfree image is...quite a lot, and probably that needs some trimming back as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade – I have started a deletion request for all three of them together. As for the 6 uses in the non-free image, its quite lot. Checking that, I think the following pages definitely need this image.

• Dewey Defeats Truman
• Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign (Just for transparency, I (Kavyansh.Singh (talk)) created this article, currently a GA)
• 1948 United States presidential election

Rest three pages (Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey, and Chicago Tribune) also hugely benefit by the image's inclusion, but not as much as the above three. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there actually a limit as to how many logos you can put in an article?

My edits in Political appointments by Joe Biden for putting in logos/images got removed because apparently there was no clear free-use rationale for using the logos/images of certain associations and groups. What is the general rule for this kind of edit? Can you put logos/images for most groups/organizations, but not all of them? Thanks in advance for the help. Losipov (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)