Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2020/September

New logo upload

I have a new logo to add to the wikipedia page as a result of a brand change of the organization Nagarro. While I have uploaded the new logo here [[1]], could I receive some assistance at what more needs to be done here and how can I get the logo replaced? I am an employee of the organization and have disclosed my COI. Buzztrack (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buzztrack. It appears that the version of the logo that you uploaded has already been added to main infobox of Nagarro per Talk:Nagarro#Nagarro new logo: Update, Aug 28, 2020; so, there's nothing else you really need to do.

For future reference, I suggest you read c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? and c:COM:LRV if you plan to upload and more files on behalf of your company Nagarro to Commons again. Nagarro can, of course, upload content like its logo, etc. to Commons if it wants, but it will need to be released under a license that Commons accepts and the organization's c:COM:CONSENT will need to be verified. Moreover, the types of licenses that Commons accepts pretty much would allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the content and reuse for any purpose (including commercial reuse); so, you (they) might want to take that into account. In other words, once you release content under such a license, Nagarro won't really be able to prevent others from using the content in a way that might not be in the best intrests of the organization. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks like the issue was resolved at Talk:Nagarro#Nagarro_new_logo:_Update,_Aug_28,_2020 by tagging the logo as non-free and uploading it with a fair use rationale. (That and the alternative advice to seek WP:OTRS permission are valid solutions.) However, it appears that the logo is below the threshold of originality for the U.S. (appears to be the main place of business) and Germany (if the logo originates with the corporate parent instead), so I tagged it with {{PD-logo}} instead. I also did the same for the previous version of the logo. TheFeds 05:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

How to publish this image

Hello, I tried uploading this image from National polytechnic museum in Sofia, which has given me permission via email to publish it here, but it got deleted as possible copyright violation, how can I publish it without doing anything wrong? MotoJawaCZ (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

MotoJawaCZ: The Flickr uses can do one of two things: change the licence on Flickr, even is temporarily until the image has been verified, or make an OTRS permission statement per one of the two options shown on this webpage c:Commons:Email templates/Consent. ww2censor (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

SPDX Logo

Is the SPDX logo (https://spdx.dev/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2020/04/SPDX_Logo-01.svg) able to be added for the SPDX page? It's a single SVG with the logo and typeface, but I have absolutely 0 understanding of copyright, so I'll need help on how to do this right. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 18:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi WhoAteMyButter. It appears that you've figured this out on your own. Do you have any other questions? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Just decided to be bold and do it anyway. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 05:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That logo can go as {{PD-logo}} because it is below the threshold of originality for the U.S. (assuming the copyright belongs to the Linux Foundation, based there). I've changed it. (As a practical matter, given the nature of what SPDX is, it wouldn't surprise me if the logo was released under another copyright licence too.) TheFeds 04:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Posting pictures

Hello! I seem to have liked Wikipedia more and more, and as such, want the other users to know me better. I intend to post a picture of me in my page, yet I don't know the guidelines to do so. My questions (listed in order so as to avoid unnecessary, frivolous discussions)

• 1. Will I need to post the image first in Wikipedia Commons?
  • 1a. If not, what (engine/wizard) shall I use/how shall i do it?
  • 2a. Will there be paperwork signed? If so, can my explanation work (stated as follows), "This is me, ipso facto, i will not, and shall not engage in nugatory copystrikes". If it won't work, where will i sign the thingy?
  • 1b. If however, posting to wiki commons isn't the case, how shall upload then? It shall be my pleasure if you enlighten me.

That is all, thank you for reading my tedious query, and have a good day! :> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice bear johny (talk • contribs) 17:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ice bear johny. If you’re the copyright holder of the photo you want to upload (which always isn’t the case as explained in c:COM:L), then you should be able to upload it to Commons if you want. As long as the licensing you choose is acceptable for Commons, there should be no issues. Please understand though that the only types of “free” licenses that Commons (and Wikipedia) accept are generally not very restrictive; so, basically you’d be giving anyone in the world permission to download the photo at any time and use for any purpose (even to make money of off); moreover, once you do so, you can’t change your mind later on. By uploading the file, you won’t be transferring your copyright ownership to Commons or anyone else, but you will be making a version of the photo freely available to others to pretty much use as they please. If you find out someone is using it in a way that you don’t like, you might be able to get them to stop doing so for some non-copyright reason, but you won’t be able to claim they’re violating your copyright as long as they are complying with the terms of the license you chose. In addition, Commons won’t go after others on your behalf if someone is doing something you don’t like. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Oof what? So even if i put {{PD-self}} other people would be able to use that picture? Btw thanks for answering my question hehehe— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice bear johny (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ice bear johny: if you use the licence PD-self you really are giving permission to anyone to use your image, anywhere, for any reason and you would retain no control over it at all. Better to use something like {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} where others can use your photo but have to attribute you where ever they use the image.

You say you're thinking of posting a picture of yourself. Do you own the copyright - this is normally because you took the photo yourself. If you didn't press the button then it's highly likely that you aren't the copyright holder and can't use the photo without the permission of the person who did. Nthep (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Oof better change my copyright thingy then. Thanks for the information!:> Greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice bear johny (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

​ If you didn't take the photos yourself, then you shouldn't really be uploading them to either Wikipedia or Commons as explained in c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyirght holder. In addition to the two photos on your user page, you also seem to have uploaded quite a number of photos like File:JonesBridgePH.jpg and File:ManilaPostOffice.jpg as {{PD-Philippines}}. What makes you think these photos are PD-Philippines? You've provided no source information or any other information about the provenance of the files to support any claim of "PD-Philippines". Did you take these photos yourself or did you find them somewhere online? Copyright licensing can be quite tricky, but you shouldn't be uploading files if you're unable to at least specify where they came from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Lol i live in the Philippines, plus those pictures can be searched in the web. Additionally, i took them from the official website of the Mayor, so that's why i put {{PD-Philippines}}.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ice bear johny (talk • contribs) 03:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes copyright matters quite seriously and where you live has doesn't pretty much doesn't have anything to do with the copyright status of photos that you didn't take yourself. In addition, being publically available online doesn't make a photo publich domain. The photos you uploaded can be seen here where someone is claiming copyright over them; if they also appeared on the mayor's website, then can you provide a link to where you saw them there. Sometimes people (even mayors) unpload photos to their websites that they don't have copyright ownership over, but that they might've been given permission to use by the photos copyright holders or might be using under as fair use; so, I'm not sure it can be automatically assumed that the mayor is the copyirght holder of the photos.

Finally, please try to sign your talk page posts. If you're not sure how to do that, please follow the instructions in WP:SIGN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Broken bot - flags fair use image as being used on page with no valid non-free use rationale

I was trying to add the file "Bristol VA and Bristol TN flag.gif" (flag of the twin cities of Bristol, Virginia and Bristol, Tennessee) to Bristol, Virginia, but the JJMC89 bot flagged it as being on a page with "no valid non-free use rationale". I doubt that's true, since the same image is used on Bristol, Tennessee page without any problems. Please fix this problem or take the bot offline for repairs.

--73.123.30.85 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 73.123.30.85. A separate specific non-free use rationale is required for each use of a non-free file per WP:NFCC#10c; this means that if a non-free file is being used in more than one article or more than once in the same article, then a rationale needs to be provided for each individual use. That's why the bot is removing the file. If you believe that's file's non-free use in the other article can be justified per WP:NFCCP, then you should added a rationale for that particular use to the file's page and then re-add the file to the article. However, simply adding a rationale for a particular use is not in and of itself an automatic justification for non-free use as explained in WP:JUSTONE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

But the file is the flag for both cities. Plus, I don't know how to provide a "separate specific non-free use rationale". How do I? 2601:199:4181:E00:C8BA:F933:63CF:7A66 (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 2601:199:4181:E00:C8BA:F933:63CF:7A66|2601:199:4181:E00:C8BA:F933:63CF:7A66. Assuming you're also IP 73.123.30.85, you can find out how to add a non-free use rationale to a file's page at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale. A separate rationale is needed for each use because they are considered separate uses even though the flag might be being used by both cities.

You might also want to consider creating a WP:ACCOUNT if your IP address is going to change when you post; you're not required to do so, but it may help others "know" it's always you making the edits with a particular account and not someone else who just might happen to be using the same IP address to edit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I have a picture . . .

. . . from 1964. It was taken of Rotea Gilford after he was promoted to the SFPD Inspector's Bureau. It was taken by a reporter at the News Call Bulletin newspaper in San Francisco, a now defunct newspaper. When I found it in their archives, there was a note that said "some pictures may have copyrights." - but it in no way said that this picture has a copyright. Please advise if I can use it or if I need to provide more information. Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilitzianf (talk • contribs) 21:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kilitzianf. Can you provide the name of the article where you want to use the picture and also describe how you want to use it? In some cases, Wikipedia does allow copyrighted images to be uploaded and used, but only when the respective use satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

As for but it in no way said that this picture has a copyright, the standard seems to be a bit stronger than than that per c:Commons:Licensing and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files in that it tends to be assumed that all photos start out as being copyrighted until it can be clearly demonstrated that they're not; in other words, we don't try to prove the opposite, i.e. assume that a photo isn't copyrighted and then prove that it is. There are various possibilities where a copyrighted photo might become public domain (some are listed in c:Commons:Hirtle) and the more information you can provide about the provenance of the photo, the better the chance there's going to be of somebody helping you. Photos taken in 1964 are generally not considered "too old" to no longer be eligible for copyright protection, and photos taken by employees of newspapers (even defunct ones) tend things protected by copyright. Since the News-Call Bulletin now appears to be owned by the San Francisco Examiner, my guess is that the new owners own the rights to the NCB old archives as well. California as a state, however, is a bit unusual in that works created by state, country and municipal employees as part of their official duties are considered to be public domain, but that doesn't seem to be applicable here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

John Bunyan Ray

Hello, I am trying to write a Wikipedia article for pioneer trapper and outdoorsman John Bunyan Ray. Being a fairly common name, with famous names such as John Bunyan and John Ray plaguing my search results, I found it slightly difficult to find a portrait of the man. Using Google Image Search, I found a thumbnail (with the person in question in it) linking to a Pinterest album. Upon clicking on the album, I found out that it contained hundreds of photos (it was somebody's collection of massive yoga celebration Wanderlust 2013), and I could not find the image in question. Still searching for it, I decided to post File:John Ray portrait.jpg to Wiki commons and include it in my draft article. Of course, there is no copyright certification to this image. This is my first time writing a Wikipedia article, and I am stuck between a rock and a hard place; what can I do? I doubt, even if I found the image in the massive Pinterest album, that the person pinning it created the file. Is there any way that this will get verified and be able to be used? It's the only image I can find online; I have a book with images of it in him. If this can't get verified, another question is could I scan/copy it from the book (I have the author's email address) and call it my own since I would be the first one to post it online? I just can't figure out even where to put the copyright tags or anything. Thanks a million! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChickenChocken (talk • contribs) 15:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

ChickenChocken: Actually did not not upload the image to commons but here on the enwiki and there are none of the required details. I've added a blank template that requires filling in of all the details and a licence is necessary. As you see I have also linked to the draft article and image in your post above so other editors don't have to go searching around; that makes it easy for others to help you. Is the image in the book the same as the one you uploaded? If so then maybe there are better details there. A Google image search gives just the one result which is the uploaded image. I'm sorry but you need to do more work for us to even keep the image. Do remember not every biographic article must have an image of the subject. Good luck ww2censor (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Madsen LAR

In the article List of battle rifles, the image of the Madsen LAR was removed for copyright violation, but this is the same one used in the article of the weapon itself, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madsen_light_automatic_rifle_LAR_M-62,_caliber_7.62_51_NATO,_fixed_butt.jpg) and in my copyright ignorance, it feels like a mistake - I don't see how one is appropriate, but not the other. Loafiewa (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Loafiewa. Please see WP:OTHERIMAGE for a more detailed explanation why, but basically each use of a non-free file needs to meet all ten non-free content use criteria; so, just because one use of a non-free file is considered policy compliant that doesn't mean all other uses of the same file are also necessarily policy compliant. A non-free image such as this is generally allowed when no free-equivalent image is considered likely to be created or found and when the image is used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the subject it depicts; so, that is why the image's use is considered acceptable in Madsen LAR. The use of the same image in other ways or in other articles is much harder to justify and non-free images being used to identify individuals entries of a list article are particularly not really allowed per WP:NFLISTS and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI. The reason the bot removed the file was because of WP:NFCC#10c (i.e. it lacked a separate specific non-free use rationale for the list article), but a valid non-free use rationale for the list article can't really be written per WP:JUSTONE and it's highly likely the file's non-free use would be successfully challenged even if you did provide the missing non-free use rationale. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I can always ask

Dr. Catherine Nakalembe, a winner of the Africa Food Prize (AFP) 2020 on BBC World- Focus on Africa.

I'd like to use this video as an EL in Catherine Nakalembe, but my guess is that I'm wrong I can't, because it's not posted by the BBC. So, can someone tell me I'm wrong, please? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Without some clear evidence this is freely licensed we cannot use the image. Because it is obviously a BBC production, that i actually watched the other day, they would have to freely license the image/video for us to be able to use it. Most news organisations do not do that. ww2censor (talk) 13:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Ww2censor Yeah, but "censor" is part of your username so of course you say that ;-) Anyway, that's what I thought, thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually Gråbergs Gråa Sång my user name has nothing to do with that thought you have. My interest lies in collecting items such as these especially Irish ones. ww2censor (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Joseph Coats.png

Hi Folks!! I uploaded this image. Its Public Domain Mark 1.0 according to [2] but I couldn't find a licence for it. It seems to be wholly public domain. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 21:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The original is here (also on PMC here), which lists the author of the obituary as "W. T. G." - but that doesn't mean that person took that photograph/picture. Per Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom If the work was published before 30 August 1989 then copyright expires 70 years after that first publication. - which applies here unless the photograph can have its author ascertained. I believe this makes it commons-eligible per being PD in the UK, and it's PD in the US because it's UK copyright has expired - but don't quote me on that. I mainly figured I'd provide links to the original articles in the BMJ so you could attribute the image to those (and those seem to maybe be higher quality too). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Berchanhimez: Thanks for that and finding a nicer looking one. It looks much better, I'll use it. It looks awful dark in the article Joseph Coats, when your sitting in a dark room. If its in public domain, and I upload the BMJ image, what licence would I use? Currently the brown image at [3] doesn't have a licence tag. I was looking for a British public domain tag I put couldn't see one in the [4] public domain category. scope_creep^Talk 10:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

It has been resolved. This can be closed. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Image rights

Wikipedia has an article for Liz Whitney Tippett. When you do a Google search for the exact Wikipedia name or her best known name Liz Whitney, the Wikipedia article comes up on the Google page with a photo of her next to it that is not in the Wikipedia article. Can we use that same photo? Stretchrunner (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Stretchrunner Assuming you mean this image [5], google seems to have got it from a site called geni.com, which doesn't say anything about the image. So, insufficient data, but probably not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stretchrunner: The person is dead, so you can probably upload it, under the Fair Use doctrine. You specify in the File upload Wizard. You must be able to supply the source URL and the date of death. Select This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. and then select This is an historic portrait of a person no longer alive.. Fill everything in. Make sure the template is completed, with all fields. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Stretchrunner: However if a freely licensed image can be found you can't use a non-free one. This image appears to be an advertising image which has a copyright notice of 1930 (bottom right) so you will have to determine if the copyright was renewed or not. If not, that could be used. The image you refer to appear to be from 1937 but I can't find anything else about it. You should do some more investigation before just uploading a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

My thanks to you all. Greatly appreciate something clearly enunciated that helps those of us who have to "find their way" an such things at Wikipedia. I will copy this and put it in my Wiki "How/What to do" file. Again, thank you. Stretchrunner (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Cut image from Sky-map.org

Hello, I have cut an image from Sky-map.org (Wikisky) to use in a new article. I read: "SKY-MAP.ORG allows to use their processed images and cut out tools for non-commercial use with additional credits to WikiSky.org". I'm ready to upload the file but my question is, does this fit in the "free use" category, or non-free, "fair use"? Thanks! Assambrew (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid Wikipedia does not count an image restricted to non-commercial use as being free use. See WP:Image use policy#Free licenses. On the other hand a requirement to credit the creator is perfectly acceptable (and should be done anyway). Thincat (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Since there is the restriction to non-commercial use, I'm reluctant to try using the cut image. I'll try to find something free use. Assambrew (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 September 8 § File:Hick Hargreaves and Co. Ltd. advert.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Using non-free images for list article tables

For the list of Pomona College presidents, I'm thinking about adding photos, similar to the ones at the Washington College list or the U Michigan list. Some of the presidents, e.g. E. Wilson Lyon, have only a fair use portrait available, though. Could I write a non-free use rationale for including these images in the table? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair use requires you to discuss the picture, not merely illustrate the list. This would not be acceptable. Rmhermen (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb: Also see WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLE. ww2censor (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo

I would like to get permission to use one of the photos on the Soesterberg section. I am writing an article about Soesterberg for one of the Coast Guard Auxiliary newsletters and would like to use the photo title pilotless Soviet MiG-23 over Belgium. The pilots that shot the plane down were from Soesterberg. They went up to intercept the plane after it crossed the east/west border. When they approached the plane they saw that there was not pilot and the plane itself was in a flamed-out status. They requested permission to shoot the plane to keep it from coming down in a residential area. I can't find the photographer to ask permission. The letters under the photo are theaviationist.com.

Sandy DeLaughter

Exactly what image are you referring to? Provide a full url of the page the image is on, not just the url of the image itself, so we can review itww2censor (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

After peering around I think https://theaviationist.com/2012/10/03/mig23-belgium/ is being referred to which contains a photo attributed to "Rob Schleiffert/Wiki". This is on Commons at commons:File:F-15C 32nd TFS (18843926830).jpg where it is, in turn, attributed to https://www.flickr.com/photos/109661044@N07/18843926830 You do not need to ask permission: Rob Schleiffert has already given permission to use it provided people credit him and specify the Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic licence as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ explains. ("CC BY-SA 2.0" in short). However, it would be nice to thank Rob on Flickr (but because I live in a Flickr-free world I don't know how to do that!). Thincat (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

File:An American Werewolf in London poster.jpg

Hi, I don't understand how this poster (and many many other movie posters) can be used as "fair use". The description tells that it can only be used "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration". However in the article An American Werewolf in London I don't see "critical commentary" that refers to the poster, just illustration in the infobox. (please, ping me on reply) --Kanzat (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Kanzat: it is generally accepted that under our non-free media policy one may use a non-free film poster but only as identification in the infobox of the article about that film. You may not use it elsewhere without critical commentary about the poster itself and complying with all 10 non-free policy criteria. ww2censor (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this photo PD?

Hello, I'm looking for guidance on the copyright status of a photo available here. The copyright is given on the very photo as "Maull & Fox : 187A Piccadilly, London (1879-85)", for which a few details are given here. I found just a handful of photos from this source on Commons (e.g. File:Markham_Le_Fer_Taylor.jpg), though this may simply indicate that the collection includes mostly images of non-notable individuals. Would you say the photo is PD? For what it's worth, the individual depicted on it was born in 1863 and died in 1932, and the photo was taken sometime in the 1890s. Thank you for your feedback. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)‎

This is apparently in the public domain; the exact tag to use depends on the details. Am I correct the photo is intended to be of Shapurji Sorabji the father, not Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji the son? According to the article Henry Maull, Maull & Fox were no longer in partnership in the 1890s (only from 1879–1885, as stated in the caption). Apparently the business continued under that name for some time, perhaps at a different location. If it was taken by the individuals Maull and Fox, but perhaps at a different date (the subject could be aged no more than 22 during the time listed as their partnership, assuming correct date of birth information), {{PD-old-100}} applies given Maull and Fox's deaths in 1914 and 1907 respectively. If you are sure the photo was taken in the 1890s, but have no idea who published it or when, then I think it still barely passes the worst-case test (unpublished and anonymous) for {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Given some inferences about the authorship or publication, and even if the date was later than the 1890s, it might be subject to {{PD-US-expired}} (for the United States, which is sufficient for Wikipedia) and {{PD-old-70}} (for the United Kingdom, which in combination with the preceding would make the photo suitable for Wikimedia Commons). Perhaps someone knows how Maull & Fox images were typically published? TheFeds 07:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for the information. Yes, the photo is of Shapurji Sorabji, the composer's father. I will do a bit of checking to find out when it was first published and hope to get back to you soon. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I had a look into Marc-André Roberge's book Opus sorabjianum and found that the photo was reproduced in at least two sources a few years after it was taken. Here is the information provided:

"Institution of Civil Engineers (London), 'Supplementary Notice for Election into the Institution', 17 May 1887. Shapurji Sorabji was proposed by William Inglis. This Institution also owns the original of one of the few of Shapurji Sorabji's known photographs (the one reproduced in the Textile Mercury). The photograph, taken in 1887 by Maull & Fox, 187a Piccadilly, is contained in a binder entitled Photographs of Members, Associate Members, and Associates of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Cabinets." (p. 35)

"'Mr. Shapurjee Sorabjee: A Pioneer of India's Industrial Development', The Textile Mercury (Manchester), 1 April 1905: [2]-7 (p. 2 consists of a photograph of Shapurji Sorabji; the article was reprinted, probably at his request, for promotional purposes)" (p. 34)

I don't know if the photographer is specified in any source (and it was taken after the Maull & Fox partnership ended), but Sean Vaughn Owen's Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji: An Oral Biography simply gives "Unknown photographer" in the photo details (p. 328). Toccata quarta (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Based on the information you found in the Roberge book, I think this points to {{PD-US-expired}} + {{PD-UK-unknown}}, based on some inferences.

Roberge says that the Institution of Civil Engineers (London) owns the original photo, and held it in a binder. That's not enough information to say the Institute published it, because merely exhibiting an artwork isn't publication. Similarly, it's not clear how the Institute came to own the photo, whether it owned the copyright too, and thus whether it was permitted to publish it in the first place (or indeed whether it ever did so). But let's set that aside for the moment, because the Mercury sounds like it was an authorized publication in 1905, so we can disregard the possibility that the photo was unpublished. Regarding Maull and Fox, we can surmise that their partnership either granted each person a part interest in the copyright of joint works (e.g. the company is a simple partnership), or granted a corporate entity copyright ownership (e.g. they owned a limited liability company jointly). It may also be impossible to know for sure if Maull or Fox (or unknown assistants) personally contributed to this particular image.

So to return to the options I mentioned above, it sounds like we have established 1887 creation and no later than 1905 publication: this means {{PD-US-expired}} is valid (work published outside the U.S. by foreign national before 1925) and U.S. public domain status is enough to host on English Wikipedia. (Technically, there are some special cases, but it is very unlikely they apply. And if it was somehow published in the U.S. first before 1925, it would still be in the public domain.) Additionally, if you would like to also show U.K. public domain, I'd leave it up to your judgment whether to attribute to Maull, Fox, Maull & Fox (the company), other or a combination. {{PD-UK-unknown}} is called for if after "reasonable enquiry" the author is unknown, and I think we have no principled basis on which to say we know who authored the photo; merely to say that it is most likely the joint work of Maull and Fox and subject to U.K. copyright expiration 70 years after the death of the last author (1914). (If we instead wanted to assert the truth of the latter, then it would be {{PD-old-100}}.) Hopefully this logic seems reasonable. TheFeds 11:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheFeds: Thank you for the thorough response. If I wanted to upload the photo to Commons, would that be OK? And if so, what would be the safest template/argument to use for putting it there? Toccata quarta (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

To add to Commons, you'd definitely need to include both PD-US-expired and PD-UK-unknown there in the license tags when you upload and add in elements of TheFeds' rationale to explain why as justification. It likely won't be deleted right away but someone may later find the evidence not available to ownership for example, but that's unlikely to happen, at which point we can rescue it back to en.wiki with the PD-US-expired tag. --Masem (t) 14:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Great! I have uploaded the image here and put the recommended templates on the page, along with comments based on the rationales TheFeds had provided above. I will eventually tweak the photo and crop it; as it is, it looks a bit "stretched" in the Sorabji article. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

One more question. I found out that a photograph of Sorabji's mother (taken sometime in the 1880s) was taken by a photographer who died in 1916. The photograph was first published in 2006. Could its inclusion on Commons be justified with {{PD-US-unpublished}} and {{PD-old-100}}, or would we have to settle for putting it on en.wikipedia and rely (solely) on {{PD-US-unpublished}}? Toccata quarta (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it known in which country the photo of Sorabji's mother was taken? Was the photographer John Chancellor (d. 1916) British? Since media on Commons has to be free in both the United States and in the source country of the work, we should ideally indicate some of that information to tag with {{PD-old-100}}. If we have reason to assume/know the U.K. is the place of origin, or that it was taken in one of the many other places where that tag is true, then I think your choice of tags is appropriate.

One additional tag that may apply is {{commons:Template:PD-EU-unpublished}}, based on Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Publication_right and Publication right. However, I'm not especially familiar with this right and whether (per the statement in the article) "permission of the owner of the corresponding physical medium" has been satisfied, or if that is even a correct statement of the law. Since we are only obliged to indicate copyright status, I would view correct publication right status tagging to be a valuable courtesy but not a requirement. TheFeds 10:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing information on where it was taken in the Sorabji-related sources I know, but the photographer was Irish (or at least based in Ireland) and Dublin is mentioned on the original photo (File:Madeline_Matilda_Worthy.jpg). Based on what is known about John Chancellor's life (see [6]) and Sorabji's family, it seems extremely unlikely that the photo was taken outside the British Isles, but I can't say so with complete certainty. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The software icon in the SkiFree article main infobox

The article SkiFree has an image of a software icon, File:SkiFree icon.gif, in the article's main infobox. The question I have is whether the usage of the icon in the infobox is appropriate. The page https://ski.ihoc.net/ shows what appears to be the same icon in its "Sights and Sounds" section and states that the icon was made by "some graphic artist at Microsoft." The WP article indicates that the SkiFree game was released for multiple platforms. I do not know if different icons were used for all of the different releases. From what I remember, the iOS release of the SkiFree game from GearSprout has an icon that is similar to the icon in the article infobox. In the "Ports and releases" section of the WP article, there is a statement about SkiFree and proprietary rights and about GearSprout being able to do a version of the game. --Elegie (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Is the question whether the icon is copyrighted by Microsoft, or instead Gearsprout? In any event, does {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot}} help clarify Microsoft's position on the issue if it is indeed their work? (The text of that template is for screenshots, but the permission is wider-ranging.) TheFeds 04:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheFeds: Thanks for the feedback. My guess is that if the SkiFree icon in the article infobox is copyrighted, then the copyright holder is most likely Microsoft. I am not aware of any copyright transfer agreements that included the depicted SkiFree icon. However, in the "Ports and releases" section of the article, there is a statement about Microsoft "'no longer claiming rights' to [the SkiFree and Rodent's Revenge software titles]", leaving the question as to whether the icon is public domain or copyrighted but freely reusable (the latter might be more likely.) --Elegie (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheFeds: A question that I have is whether there is a different icon or cover art that would be more appropriate for the article's main infobox. The article indicates that the SkiFree game was released for multiple platforms. On the page https://ski.ihoc.net/, Chris Pirih shows a "crappy Windows icon" that he created for the game; however, that icon may not have been used for any public releases of the game. It is of course possible that the SkiFree game is most closely associated with the Windows platform (though the article indicates that there was a release for DOS in the same year) as opposed to other platforms and systems; in that case, the current icon in the article infobox may be appropriate. --Elegie (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright, given that Gearsprout apparently has a commercial interest that depends on Microsoft being amenable to the commercialization of the game, I don't think it would be advisable to rely upon the cited source for updating the copyright status. The WP:OTRS process would be a better way to record Microsoft's position on the matter, if they can indeed be induced to make a statement. Also, I don't really know whether any particular icon or image is most appropriate; that seems like an editorial decision that could be raised on the talk page, or simply chosen based on an editor's discretion. Given that Microsoft allows use of software screenshots, if for example the yeti was a better image, it could be substituted. TheFeds 09:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheFeds: As of this writing, the icon is indicated as being non-free content. I myself do not feel inclined to change the information for File:SkiFree icon.gif to indicate, in particular, that Microsoft placed the icon into the public domain. In Wikipedia, it sometimes happens where a non-free icon for a proprietary software title is used in the article about that software title, in the article's main infobox, to assist readers in identifying the subject of the article. My thought is that such usage may be allowable. For SkiFree, if there is a screenshot that would fulfill the same purpose as the icon and which would be an allowed Microsoft screenshot, then such a screenshot might be a "freer" alternative to the icon. --Elegie (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Are philippine bldg and sculpture 0hotos acceptable on wikipedia?

Hello. I was directed there through a suggested venue at my query and concern at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Wikimedia

Cullen328 said that both wikipedia and wikimedia commons do not tolerate copyright violation. Wikimedia commons' one golden rule for photos featuring bldgs and sculptures is that they should be under the freedom of panorama if the country has such rule on their copyright law. Most philippine bldgs and sculptures are not allowed there because theres no freedom of pano in the copyright law of the country.

My question is does wikipedia has similar rule for photos pf philippine bldgs and sculptures or not? Or does it allow photos pf philippine bldgs and sculptures? I can see various photos of philippine bldgs and sculptures with no logo and link to wikimedia commons having "do not move to wikimedia commons" notices. For resolution they are in full resolutions.

Cullen328 added that "A low resolution photo of a copyrighted sculpture may be permissible if it illustrates sourced critical commentary about that sculpture in an encyclopedia article." How about high resolution photos that i can see in some uploads of what i assume to be filipino wikipedians?

One perfect example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDSA_Shrine

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mrcl lxmna: According to the information at Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama, photos of architectural works in the Philippines would be acceptable on the English Wikipedia. In particular, there is the template {{FoP-USonly}}. For a photo of such an architectural work, my guess is that the photo itself (but not the photo's subject) would have to be licensed under a free content license or be out of copyright. At the same time, photos of copyrighted artistic works (such as sculptures) in the Philippines would have to be treated as non-free content. --Elegie (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

After a thorough reading of "Wikipedia:Non-free content", i realize some phil sculpture photos taken by filipino wikipedians fail the policy of non-free content, as you shared @Elegie:. Some are in their very large resolutions, other simply unused. Still the use of others in philippine related articles might fail your policy on non-free content. I might list them here if i immediately see them, as i dont know the wikipedia method of reporting violating images Mrcl lxmna (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

IMAGES OF PHIL SCULPTURES:

- File:Bonifacio_Shrine_January_2020.JPG - orig reso and unused.

- File:Mall_of_asia_01.jpg - unused and orig reso. More to list.....

From one of my critics at wikimedia commons, who is in himself violating your non free content policy by continuing to upload high reso photos of creative artworks like sculptures, monuments, memorials, and the like with much of them unused, and if used not in very low reso.

- File:EDSA_Shrine_(Ortigas,_Quezon_City;_02-10-2019).jpg

- File:Rizal_Park_-_KM_Zero_marker_(Roxas_Boulevard,_Manila;_01-01-2020).jpg

- File:Rizal_Park_-_Valencia_Circle_(Manila;_12-30-2019)_wiki.jpg

- File:Jones_Bridge_-_new_light_posts_(Manila;_11-24-2019).jpg

- File:Bonifacio_Shrine_and_City_Hall_clock_tower_(Manila;_11-23-2019).jpg

- File:Bonifacio_Shrine_(Padre_Burgos,_Manila;_11-23-2019).jpg

- File:EDSA_Shrine_(EDSA-Ortigas,_Quezon_City;_09-10-2019).jpg

- File:King_Philip_Statue,_Intramuros_(Manila;_11-10-2019).jpg

- File:Rizal_Monument,_Calamba_(close-up)_(Chipeco_Ave.,_Calamba,_Laguna)(2018-08-21).jpg

- File:Rizal_Monument,_Calamba_(close-up_side)_(Chipeco_Ave.,_Calamba,_Laguna)(2018-08-21).jpg

- File:Urdaneta_Monument_(City_Hall,_McArthur_Highway,_Urdaneta,_Pangasinan)(2018-11-27).jpg

- File:People_Power_Monument_(EDSA-White_Plains,_Quezon_City)(2015-01-03).jpg

- File:People_Power_Monument_(EDSA-White_Plains,_Quezon_City)(2010-08-30)_2.jpg

- File:SM_Mall_of_Asia_Globe_(EDSA_Ext.,_Pasay)(2018-02-20).jpg

- File:SM_Mall_of_Asia_-_Globe_(EDSA_Ext.,_Pasay)(2017-12-31).JPG

- File:University_of_the_Philippines_(UP_Campus)_-_Oblation_(Diliman,_Quezon_City;_2015-01-22).jpg

- File:University_of_the_Philippines_(UPLB)_-_Oblation_(Los_Baños,_Laguna;_2017-02-16).jpg

- File:Lingayen_Beach_-_I_Love_Pangasinan_sign_(Lingayen,_Pangasinan)(2018-02-25).jpg

- File:Ph-mm-quezon_city-edsa-ortigas_ave.-ortigas_center-edsa_shrine_(2015)_01.JPG

- File:Carabao_Sculpture_(Rizal_Park,_Roxas_Blvd.,_Ermita,_Manila;_2015-06-12).jpg

- File:People_Power_Monument_(EDSA-White_Plains,_Quezon_City;_2014-12-03).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcl lxmna (talk • contribs) 10:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St._Andrew_Makati_Interior.jpg cross and interior artworls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrcl lxmna (talk • contribs) 11:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

​ You can start a discussion at WP:FFD about files uploaded to Wikipedia; there are instructions at the top of the FFD page explaining how to do that.

It seems that most of the files you've listed above aren't licensed as non-free content, which means they aren't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy per se; so, what you're first going to need to establish is whether these files are possibly unfree files. The file's licensing needs to be sorted out first before any discussion about whether the file's use is acceptable non-free content use.

In some cases, the file may not need be deleted, but rather only needs a non-free license (e.g. {{Non-free 3D art}}) and a non-free use rationale (e.g. {{Non-free use rationale}}) to be added for the 3D work itself in addition to the free license already provided for the photo. Basically, such a file would need two copyright licenses (one for the photo and one for the 3D work); the file would then also need a valid non-free use rationale for each of its uses. If the uploader is the same person who took the photo, then the license they selected is most likely fine for the photo and all that needs to be resolved is the licensing for the 3D work. So, before you start an FFD discussion about all of these files, you might want to try and explain your concerns to the uploader(s) of the files as a courtesy and to also see is there's a way to resolve any issues without the need of FFD. You might also want to take a look at c:Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#New discussion on PHL FoP because that discussion seems like it might be relevant to these types of files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: i already changed the entire details of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bonifacio_Shrine_(Padre_Burgos,_Manila;_11-23-2019).jpg to non free content details. I also sent five of the photos to files for discussion, but the process of sending them to that venue is tedious. Sorry if i am impatient for some occassion. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't have changed the "entire details" of that file because a license still is need for the photo itself. This seems to have been here by JJMC89. You also don't need to add the the full urls for each file you'd like to discuss; you can just add a link to the file's page like File:Bonifacio Shrine (Padre Burgos, Manila; 11-23-2019).jpg (i.e. [[:File:Bonifacio Shrine (Padre Burgos, Manila; 11-23-2019).jpg]]) using the WP:COLON trick instead. In addition, when you start a discussion about a file at FFD, you should also make sure to notify the person who uploaded the file so that they are aware of your concerns. Finally, you might want to slow down a bit and not start any new FFD discussions for the moment because there might be other ways to resolve this that don't require a formal FFD discussion. If the process seems tedious to you, then there's a chance that you might make mistakes which is something that is only going to create more cleanup for others to do and may even lead to other types of problems. Thank you for making your good-faith concerns known here. Lots of editors (including some Wikipedia administrators) who are more familiar than you with things like WP:FOP and WP:NFCC tend to monitor this page, and they probably will help figure out what needs to be done. It might take a little time, but eventually it should all be sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

In terms of the licenses on these images, if under Phillipinnes law these would be copyrightable pieces of art and photos would be derivative images, then these are non-free for en.wiki's purpose. That the uploader has marked their photos as PD or a free license is great so that when the art/structures fall out of Phil. copyright, then we can immediately use those photos, but the underlying structure is still copyrighted, and that license needs to be added to the files. This would then override the "do not move to Commons" because that copyright would prevent the moving. --Masem (t) 22:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Marchjuly and Masem: for your reminders. I fix tgose file names. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)