Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/December

Image download from YouTube and Instagram for Medşa Commons

Hello! For an article I've expanded and nominated for DYK, which is to appear on the Main page on 8 December, I think it is god to have images. I saw several interesting images at the person's YouTube and Instagram accounts. My question is: Is it permissionable to download some of them and upload toto Wikimedia Commons? Is yes, under which conditions? Thank you for your advice. CeeGee 14:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@CeeGee In general, no, but you might get lucky. If there's pics or vids clearly marked with any of these licenses [1][2] go ahead (not as "own work" though), if not, don't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you very much indeed for yor explanation. I am not familiar with © of videos on the internet, and I do not know where to look after it in the video. If you don't mind I would like to give the example videos I am interested in:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzD_I_vsM34
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZWkKNGLeYw

• Moreover, I would lıke to ask you how to make an image from a video so that I can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. CeeGee 11:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  @CeeGee Hmm, perhaps this YT [3] can help. Under "show more" you see the license, if any. I'd be surprised if anything from World Taekwondo has it.

  If it was me, I'd take a screenshot on my laptop and upload it via Commons Upload wizard. Copyright rules are hard and restrictive, but that's our world.

  What you can try if you like is to try to contact the person in question and basically ask "Can you please take a selfie and upload it on Commons so we can use it on WP (6 WP:s atm)?" This can actually work, some people like the idea of having a nice picture of them on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your help. Besy regards. CeeGee 08:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I have now uploaded three images to Wikimedia Commons under Category:Zeliha Ağrıs. As I don't know which copyright information has to be added, I kindly ask you to give assistance. Which one and where to add? Thanks. CeeGee 15:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  @CeeGee Based on the video and my understanding, [4] is the one you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: You were really very helpful. Thanks a lot. CeeGee 11:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Stauffer, Oregon Homestead, 1915.jpg

I came across this while checking on files tagged for WP:NFCC#9 violations. If the description is correct and the file is from 1915, then there's a good chance it might be OK to re-license as {{PD-US-expired}}. The file's description states it comes from a 1977 book, but it's not clear if that's the date of first publication. Anyone have any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

As a courtesy, this is the relevant book sources page. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

File:ReaganCCP.jpg

Is File:ReaganCCP.jpg truly in public domain as a U.S. military work? The provided link only points to a notice claiming the website is under-construction. I'm not sure if the file is eligible for Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPP § Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPP § Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyright for my image File:Logo of GMH.png

Hi, recently I'm writing an article for one of the hospitals in Malaysia: Gleneagles Hospital Medini Johor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_GMH.png

I understand this image may face the copyright issue and does I'm asking for help. I get the logo from their website, and they have agreed to let me use this logo and upload on the Wikipedia page. I will be also writing for other Gleneagles hospitals as well, and I will be uploading their logos on their respective page as well. Please let me know if my copyright tag in this logo is correct, so I can apply the same thing across all other logos in the future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_GMH.png

Wcsneel (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wcsneel. Since you're appear to be editing on behalf of the hospital, the first thing you need to do so (if you haven't already done so) is to carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure they would seem to apply to your specific situation. Please note that any conflict-of-interest you may have is not simply related to the logos you want to use, but any edits you make on Wikipedia related to this hospital. If you're not sure what a "conflict-of-interest" means even after looking at those two Wikipedia pages, then try seeking assistance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

As for your question about the copyright status of the logo, it's most likely going to be considered to be under copyright protection and will need to be treated as non-free content unless the copyright holder (i.e. the hospital) is will to make a freely licensed version of the logo available for anyone anywhere in the world to reuse at anytime for any purpose (including commercial and derivative reasons) by giving their WP:CONSENT. If the copyright holder wants to do this, then someone representing them should send an email to Wikimedia VRT so that copyright holder consent can be verified. There's an example of the type of email to send in found on the CONSENT page. Now, if the copyright holder doesn't want to give their consent, then the file will need to be treated as non-free which means that each use of it will need to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

Currently, the file is licensed under a {{Non-free logo}} license which means it's going to be treated as non-free content; non-free content, however, is only allowed to be used in articles per non-free content use criterion #9 which means the file is eventually going to be removed from Draft:Gleneagles Hospital Medini Johor and subsequently deleted if it's not used in at least one article as required by non-free content use criterion #7. The file is also lacking a non-free use rationale as required by non-free content use criterion #10c, but a valid rationale cannot be written for the draft namespace. So, my suggestion would be to discuss this with the hospital and see whether it wants to give its consent to release the logo under one of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts. If it does, then ask someone with the authority to do so to email Wikimedia VRT and a VRT volunteer will take care of the rest as long as there are no problems with the email. If the hospital doesn't want to give its consent, then the best thing for you to do would be to let the file be deleted and then request that it be restored by an administrator as non-free content once the draft you're working on has been accepted as an article as explained here.

Finally, If the hospital states they want the logo to only be used on Wikipedia or only used for non-commercial (i.e. educational) purposes, then that's too restrictive for Wikipedia licensing purposes and the logo will need to be treated as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Image of 29 Old Burlington Street, London

On this link [5] (scroll down) there is an image of this building, marked: “Figure 84b: No. 29 Old Burlington Street. West front in 1935”. At the top of the link it says: “This free content was digitised by double rekeying and sponsored by English Heritage. All rights reserved.”. Does "free content" mean it can be uploaded to Wikimedia and used under “fair use” on Wikipedia? By the way, the image was taken in 1935, just prior to demolition of the building. Anne (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbil44: I doubt you can justify the use of this image under our non-free policy because the image is not essential to readers' understanding of the topic, especially WP:NFCC#8, assuming you are intending it for the Old Burlington Street article that already has some freely licenced images. Also, as with an unknown author, it is not going to be a freely licenced per UK copyright, unless you have fuller details. "Free content" usually just means freely available to view but does not, per se, infer any specific copyright status. ww2censor (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Ww2censor. It is intended for the article on Charles Asgill, whose father bought No. 29 for him when he was sixteen years old. Does it qualify having been taken 86 years ago by any chance? The very long article about the property [6] suggests that an image was only taken at the time of demolition because it was realised that no images otherwise existed. Possibly a demolition contractor took the photograph? The house had been built sort of back-to-front, with an uninteresting side facing the street, so nobody had bothered to photograph it before. Anne (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding whether the image is still in copyright, the flowchart from the UK National Archives is useful [7]. Potential key questions are (i) can anybody identify who actually took the photograph; and (ii) when was it first published?

According to the list of plates at the front of the book [8] the image (plate 84b) was said [as of 1963] to be Copyright Messrs. Gordon Jeeves. That would be the architecture firm of architect Stanley Gordon Jeeves (1888-1964), who was the architect of the flats that were developed over the site in 1935. If Gordon Jeeves himself was known to be the taker of the photograph, then copyright in it would continue to until the end of 2034, 70 years after his death. However, there seems to be no reason a priori to assume this. On the copyright law of the time, copyright would have been owned by the firm whoever took the picture (eg a contractor or an employee perhaps), if the picture had been taken for the firm, or the firm in any other way had ended up as the owner of the negative -- with no particular legal value at the time in keeping a record of who might actually have taken the photograph. In such a case, when it is not any longer possible to identify who took the picture, the question of first publication becomes critical to the present-day copyright status. If the photograph was first published in the 1963 book, then it would be in copyright until the end of 2033, 70 years after that publication. However, if it was published before the end of 1950 (ie more than 70 years ago), and the person who took it cannot be identified, then the image would now be out of copyright. This seems a very real possibility. In particular, it may be worth trying to track down the "'obituary' of General Wade's house [that] was published in The Architect and Building News" (11 Oct. 1935, p. 42.), to see whether the photograph may have been included in that article, and if so how it was credited (if at all).

It may also be worth being in touch with the Institute of Historical Research, to see what clearances they may have done on the photograph before including it on line. Given that they frequently exclude images from the digitisations of the books that they have not been able to clear, the fact that they have presented this one may mean that they were able to clear it (or, perhaps, to have got permission to display it). So it could well be worth emailing them to say that you've seen this image, and were wondering if they had been able to clear it, and/or who might own the current copyright. Jheald (talk) 12:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Jheald for the time and trouble you have taken to give this advice. I will start with the Institute of Historical Research. Your help is much appreciated. Anne (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As for the journal, it seems it may be quite widely held by university libraries [9], as well as some presumably not hit by that search. Jheald (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jheald. I've emailed the IHR, and in passing asked them if they have a copy of The Architect and Building News" (11 Oct. 1935, p. 42.). I tried to find it on Hathitrust, and JSTOR, with no luck. Sometimes Cordless Larry has been prepared to help me on matters of this kind. Any chance again CL?! I do have a friend at the British Library, but I've gone over my limit with her, and promised faithfully I would not get back to her! Anne (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Anne: The pics of the design for the house at eg [10] (scroll down), [11], or [12] may also be of use (cf also [13]), unless you are particularly wanting to show what had become of the house by the 1930s (eg the addition of an upper floor). We actually already have a (rather ropey) copy of the Palladio drawing, at File:PalladioPalazzoJonesBurlingon.jpg, which is being used on Richard_Boyle,_3rd_Earl_of_Burlington. It may be possible to extract full-resolution copies of the British Museum and Royal Collection pics using something like dezoomify. Jheald (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Added: also at RIBA: [14], [15], [16], [17]. Again, it may be possible to extract full-resolution versions using something like de-zoomify. Jheald (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's a copy we already have of the BM print from Vitruvius Britannicus: File:Vitruvius Britannicus, The Elevation of General Wade his house in great Burlington Street.jpg Jheald (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Less yellowed copy of the Vitruvius Britannicus print, from the V&A: [18]. Jheald (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that drawing would be a jolly good second option if I fail to get anywhere with the IHR. Let's see what they come back with. In the interim I might just put the drawing on the page, in the hope that the photograph may follow i.d.c. You are going out of your way to help, thank you. Anne (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are leaving me behind with your computer-talk! I don't understand! Anne (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I tried to place this "File:PalladioPalazzoJonesBurlingon.jpg|29 Old Burlington Street. Palazzo front by Andrea Palladio" on the Asgill page, but even managed to get that wrong. I give up now. All this IT stuff is beyond me. I'll wait to hear from IHR.Anne (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

That Vitruvius Britannicus is, unfortunately, much too big for the space available on the Asgill page. I prefer the photograph, so will wait for the reply from IHR! Anne (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of this. (Feel completely free to revert back if you don't like it). I have used the Vit. Brit. pic, but as a thumbnail by including |thumb|left in the image statement, and also |upright, which makes it a bit smaller and narrower still. Jheald (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

As for dezoomify: Dezoomify [19] is a plug-in add-on for the Chrome web browser, which can be useful for webpages that let you zoom in on a high-resolution image, but don't let right-click save it at full resolution. When Dezoomify is activated, it tries to identify where the zoomed-in images are being served from, and then tries to build up a full-resolution copy of the whole image by requesting parts of it bit by bit at full zoom. Doing this for example on the British Museum page, I was thus able to get an image 4x more pixels wide and high than the one we previously had. Jheald (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Jheald I think what you have done is great, thank you! The only change I will want is if the photograph can be used, i.d.c. The photograph isn't great, because the building had deteriorated (150 years after Asgill moved out) and was about to be demolished, but I would still, ultimately, like to be able to use the photo if it turns out to be possible. You have been extremely kind and helpful in this quest.Anne (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Jheald you deserve to know the outcome! Once you have read the following, please would you be the one to decide what (if anyhthing) to do? - and if you think the image can go up, would you put it on the Asgill page please? I really don't know if it would be an improvement on what you have already done - not until I see the difference!

Thom, Colin <c.thom@ucl.ac.uk> To: Anne Tue, 23 Nov at 16:10 Dear Anne,

Many thanks for your enquiry, and I'm sorry for the delay in getting back to you - the past few weeks have been unusually busy.

The Palladio drawing illustrated as Plate 84a in volume 32 of the Survey of London was not reproduced in the online version on BHO, as we could not at the time afford to pay the RIBA the additional fees they required for online publication. Only those images belonging to archives who were willing to let us use them for free appear in the online versions of the volumes.

As for Plate 84b, the west front of 29 Old Burlington Street, as you'll see from the list of plates in the volume [20], this was an image given to the Survey by the Gordon Jeeves architectural practice, which was still in business in the early 1960s when the volumes were being produced. We would have no problems with you reusing that image on Wikipedia - as far as I remember copyright in published photographs expires after 50 years. But if you were still worried about that, you could do some searches to see if anyone else now has the rights to the Gordon Jeeves collection, and keep a record of those searches, then you will at least have evidence of trying to track down the present copyright holder. That's often enough to allow you to reproduce. [N.B. I am not interested in going down this route].

Many copies of the Architect & Building News have been digitized and can now be viewed online - see [21] - but unfortunately they seem to run out in the 1920s. The RIBA Library in London has them on open shelves for readers to consult, but I suspect you are not in London?

Hope that helps! Best wishes, Colin

Colin Thom Senior Research Associate Survey of London The Bartlett School of Architecture / UCL UCL Faculty of the Built Environment 22 Gordon Street London WC1H 0QB tel: 020 3108 6125 c.thom@ucl.ac.uk www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/architecture/research/survey-london Anne (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Arbil44: That's very kind of him to have got back to you, and with such a comprehensive response.

The problem here is going to be that while UK copyright in published photos used to last for 50 years (so that a plate published in 1963 would now have been out of copyright), the copyright term was extended in 1995 with retroactive effect to 70 years. So now, the fact that the photo was published in 1963 is no longer enough.

It's maybe being ultra-careful, but we really do try to get our copyright clearances right on WP, because we're then putting our name to that, and saying we've gone the whole mile, and we think anyone can freely use the image. So we need to have got that right.

Here the two routes remaining are

(i) show the image had already been published before the end of 1950 -- eg (perhaps) in the 1935 Architect & Building News; or

(ii) find out who may now has the rights to the Gordon Jeeves collection, and get a release from them (remembering that for inclusion here the permission would need to be for use not just on Wikipedia, but for re-use by anybody)

Until we can get any further forward with one or the other of those, I don't think we can use the image. Jheald (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your response Jheald but there is only so much time and effort I want to put into using an image of a rather dilapidated building! You found a jolly good alternative which, in truth, might be even better than that image. I appreciate the time you have given to this issue, so thank you for your help. We'll go no further now! Anne (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

File:80,000 Hours logo.png

This image was previously labeled as a non-free image, but some users and I have determined that it's ineligible for copyright as a {{PD-textlogo}}. Can an admin please unhide the previous version? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Non-free use rationale question

I'm updating AVL's pages on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVL_(engineering_company)). I got some feedback in the talk-section about fair use rationale for the AVL Logo on the page, that I should include in the image description. I read through different material, but I'm not sure if I'm doing it right.

Is it enough to put this information on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AVLLogo.gif&action=edit&redlink=1

{{Non-free logo}}

{{Non-free use rationale logo
| Article           = AVL Logo
| Use               = Infobox
<!-- ADDITIONAL INFORMATION -->
| Used for          = AVL List GmbH
| Owner             = AVL List GmbH
| Description       = Pictorial mark: kaleidoscope, word mark: AVL
| Website           = www.avl.com
}}

Thank you very much for your support, --Carina. (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carina. Are you connected to AVL (engineering company) in some way? You're account is fairly new and all of your edits so far have been related to this company. In addition, the content of your edits is rather promotional in nature which is also giving the impression of an WP:APPARENTCOI. If you are connected to the company, please carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure before editing the article again. There are also formatting and other errors that you've introduced as well, but those things can be fixed fairly easily; the promotional nature of your edits (at least that's my opinion on them) and any possible connection between you and AVL is more of a concern.

As for your logo question, there is already a logo being used in the main infobox of the article. Is there something wrong with that logo? The logo file currently being used was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under a public domain license back in 2014. I don't think that's really the case and that file might need to be deleted, but that will need to be discussed over on Wikimedia Commons. Do you want to upload a new version of the same logo or a different logo altogether? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thank you very much for your fast response.

Regarding the logo: I think everything is solved then, I do not want to upload any new logo, I've just seen the comment in the talk, but as you mentioned this maybe dates back to an older version, so I guess nothing to do here.

Regarding the connection to AVL: Yes, I'm currently working at AVL and also indicated that on my profile: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Carina. Is there anything else I need to consider/where I need to mention this?

Regarding the promotional text: I tried to rewrite the old version of the English text to make it less promotional, but obviously it is still too promotional. Can you please let me know to which parts you are referring? Anyways I will check the sent resources, thanks. Thanks a lot, --Carina. (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Since you've stated you're currently working for AVL, then you're going to be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about the company on English Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia has its own policies and guidelines and I'm not too familiar with what they are on German Wikipedia. Perhaps there's some similarities between them and the ones for English Wikipedia, but there might also be some important differences as well. I will add so more information about relevant English Wikipedia policies and guidelines to your user talk page for you to read. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mari0_Online_Multiplayer_Co-op_screenshot.png is free.

I don't think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mari0_Online_Multiplayer_Co-op_screenshot.png is free. The uploader claims this is their work, even though this is very clearly a screenshot from the video game. The file was uploaded in 2012. The uploader also claims this is their work because they took a screenshot from a YouTube video.Unspectrogram (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, this is non-free. I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. Nthep (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Image removal from article

Hi, can someone explain to me why this image was removed from the article? Here is the diff: [22]. The reasoning was “No valid non-free use rationale for this page.” Does an image need a different rationale for each individual article it’s used in? Spectrallights (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes it does. And particularly using cover art on article not about the work, we generally require a very strong rationale, otherwise its considered just illustrative and not appropriate. --Masem (t) 22:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The someone who removed the file is a WP:BOT that has been tasked with finding non-free files lacking non-free use rationales for certain uses as required by WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFC#Implementation and then removing such files. If a rationale is subsequently added for this particular non-free use to the file's page, the bot will stop removing it. However, simply adding a rationale doesn't automatically make a particular non-free use policy compliant as explained here. There are ten citeria that each non-free use needs to satisfy and failing even one of the ten means the use is considered to be non-compliant. Non-free screenshots or images of fictional characters are generally considered OK to use for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the characters they they represent, but other types of non-free use or uses in other articles tends to be quite difficult to justify. As Masem mentioned above, the way this non-free file was being used in that particular genre-type article is generally considered to be WP:DECORATIVE per WP:NFC#CS. In addition, there are also a WP:FREER and item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI issues as well. These things make me believe that it would be hard to establish a consensus in favor of such use at a venue like WP:FFD even if a rationale for the use was added for that particular use. You can try if you want and that will stop the bot, but I think the file will end up eventually being removed regardless all things considered. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Spectrallights (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello

This flag is WP:OR [[23]] so I suggested deleting it , explained on talk page, here: [[24]] 93.136.10.179 (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 93.136.10.179. Files uploaded to Commons are going to need to be discussed on Commons; so, if you feel that the file should be deleted from Commons for some reason, you will most likely need to start a deletion request for it on Commons. Before you do that, however, please take a look at c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:Deletion policy for reference. Commons isn't really more concerned with the copyright status of the files it hosts than it is about how such files might be being used by various Wikipedia project. So, even if the file does turn out to be OR, that might not be a sufficient reason for deleting from Commons. English Wikipedia, on the other hand, is not only concerned about a file's copyright status, but is also very concerned about its encyclopedic relevance. Wikipedia, in principle, doesn't really want OR-type files being used in its articles; so, even if the file is not deleted from Commons, it still can be (and perhaps should be) removed from any Wikipedia articles it's currently being used in. The best place to discuss that type of thing would be on the talk pages of the article's where the file is being currently being used to see what others might think. If the consensus established is that the file shouldn't be used for encyclopedic reasons, it will be most likely end up being removed regardless of what happens over at Commons with respect to copyright related reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Steel poster removal

I noticed that the image file File:Steelposter.jpg was removed, then added, then removed again from the Steel (1997 film) article. Before I make any edits to the article, I'd simply like to know why it was removed and what can be done to rectify it. Thank you. TheVHSArtist (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no rationale for that file to be used at the Steel film, though oddly it has one to be used on the character (this is generally not appropriate per WP:NFC#UUI. You need to add a rationale for the film to have it be kept ther. --Masem (t) 06:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheVHSArtist. As Masem mentioned above, the file was removed by a bot because it didn't have a non-free use rationale for that particular use. Generally, movie poster art is considered OK to use for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about the movies they represent; so, it should be OK to add a {{Non-free use rationale poster}} template to the file's page and then re-add the file to the article. Just complete the template's parameter as best as you can. I'm not sure about the way the image is being used in the character article though, but it should be fine to use in the main infobox of the article about the film. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

TheVHSArtist I've added a rational for use of this image in the article about the film and added the image to the infobox. I've removed the rational for the subject as it fail WP:NFCC for that use and per both Marchjuly's and Masem's comments above. ww2censor (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

File:TrueGrit2010Soundtrack.jpg

Any opinion as to whether File:TrueGrit2010Soundtrack.jpg could possibly be {{PD-simple}} or are there enough elements that when combined together are sufficient to push this above c:COM:TOO United States? It's fine as {{Non-free album cover}}, but I'm just curious as to whether it can be converted to PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Uploading files from Google with owner's permission

I do not know much about copyright laws, so if I were to Email the owner asking if I could use the photo and they agreed, could I upload the file to Wikipedia? Commander0034 (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Commander0034 you'd have to get them to send permission to permissions-commonswikimedia.org preferrably using the VRT release generator. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Commander0034: In most situations the photographer is the copyright holder which is what matters to us to verify the copyright status. The owner, usually a different person, may, or may not, have acquired the copyright from them, so, for that reason, asking the owner may not be useful. Also the files you find on Google may be quite low resolution while the photographer may agree to provide the original high quality resolution file. ww2censor (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ken Lyotier

Hello all. Was trying to get an image that I could use for Ken Lyotier's article. Found this image on Flickr. link here

I can not import the image since the usage allows for only non commercial usage. But, I see that the image is uploaded by the province. Is there anything about an upload by a province that would allow for the image to be in PD or in any other state that would allow for us to use this image? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ktin. Some US states like California and Florida are on record as stating that works created by their employees as part of their official duties fall within the public domain as explained in WP:PD#US government works, but I'm not aware of any Canadian provinces that do the same. Since the subject of the photo is deceased, it's possible that a non-free image of him can be uploaded an used per item 10 of WP:NFCI, but things get a little more complicated because he's recently deceased. The use of such images is quite contentious and often they end up nominated for deletion fairly soon after they're uploaded. If you've got a few days to spend, you might want to wade through WP:VPP#Requirement to contact copyright holders of existing content before allowing fair use because that's a perfect example of how contentious these types of images can be. Have you tried contacting the Flickr account holder and asking them to remove the "NC" part of their license? Have you done more than a casual search for free images of this person? Is it imperative that an image of Lyotier be immediately added to the article or do you mind spending a bit more time trying to come up with a free one to use instead? It a bit of a subjective assessment perhaps, but Lyotier seems to the type of person that was propbably photographed a lot and perhaps you can find someone who photographed him and ask them to release one of their photos under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. Nobody can force you to do so per se; however, the more of an effort you make and document in trying to find a free image, the less resistance you're going to run into if you try and use a non-free image instead. Generally, you're going to be expected to make a reasonable effort to find a free equivalent image that can serve essentially the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one. If you look at the discussion I linked to above, different people define "reasonable" in different ways, but generally some kind of attempt to find a free image is going to be expected. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Marchjuly:. I am reasonably aware of fair use rationale and while there is no written down number, we might have to at least search for six months after a person's death. I was looking for something like the CA and FL, PD directive and was trying my luck to see if BC might have such a statute (written or otherwise). Seems like it does not have. Thanks much. Ktin (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

​ If BC did have such a statute, it would likely be mentioned in c:COM:Canada. There are specific licenses which have been created for Template:PD-FLGov and Template:PD-CAGov, but I don't see any licenses for BC in c:Category:PD Canada license tags or c:Category:License tags of Canada other than c:Template:OGL-BC. A PD or freely licensed file of Lyotier should most likely be uploaded to Commons and there may be editors at c:COM:VPC who might know more about how different Canadian provinces deal with works created by their employees. As for a non-free one of Lyotier, if you've you or others can demonstrate that an effort has been made to find a free image of him while he was still living, then it might be OK to use one. Sometimes an article has existed for years without an image just because nobody was able to create or find a free one that could be used. That's not necessarily due to a lack of effort, but rather more of a case of bad luck. So, when the person dies, the use of a non-free image can sometimes be easier to justify if there are talk page discussion, noticeboard discussions, etc. to fairly easily assess what kind of effort had been made. It's for newly created articles about recently deceased persons, though, where things often can get contentious since there's almost no way to easily tell whether any effort has been made to find a free image. There do seem to be lots of photos of Loytier online, including some from YouTube videos. Maybe one of these has been released under a license that is free enough for Commons that will allow it to be uploaded and used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Boat Box Hot Springs for speedy deletion

Hello. My image File:Boat_Box_Hot_Spring.jpg I uploaded under what I believe to be fair use has been marked for speedy deletion. I disputed this on the file's page. Now what happens? Does it alert someone? Or do I simply hope someone comes back to check it before January 1st? TIA.

Jmaxx37 (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jmaxx37. The file will be reviewed by an administrator before any action is taken on it. If the administrator agrees that the file clearly fails relevant policy, they will delete it. If they feel that further discussion is warranted, they will most likely start one at WP:FFD. Just for reference and my personal opinion, even if you can't go to the location and take an equivalent photo yourself, the possibility of someone else doing that very thing is most likely going to mean that not only this non-free photo but any non-free photo of the springs is not going to be considered acceptable per WP:FREER. Even if someone is not able to take such a photo asap, a non-free photo is unlikely going to be allowed as long as it's considered reasonable for someone to do so at some point. There's a difference when it comes to fair use and non-free content use with respect to Wikipedia as explained here and relevant Wikipedia policy has been set up to be much more restrictive when it comes to photos such as these. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

UK police mugshots

Are UK police mugshots covered by copyright? e.g. this one. Sorry, I have not yet searched the archive for a previous question on this. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I think they would come under WP:Crown copyright as the Police are Officers of the Crown so it would depend on age. But as for Glitter, I think this one is still under copyright protection. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I would have also guessed the same, on both counts. But do you know of any clear written statement, e.g. on any uk.gov website? I see a statement by Devon and Cornwall Police from 2014 here saying "The image remains the copyright or Dorset Police or Devon and Cornwall Police." (... and already confused about why Dorset Police is mentioned!) Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC) p.s. the Crown Prosecution Service are obviously "Officers of the Crown", but I'm not too sure about lowly P.C. Plod.

The copyright purists always say "assume that it is copyrighted unless clearly stated otherwise". I'm not a purist, but have given various examples at User_talk:Ianmacm#Credit_where's_it_due?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

About licensing amedement for File:GSK logo 2014.svg

Can anyone please guide whether GSK's licensing should be changed from non-free to "PD-ineligible-USonly" license to make it usable on other articles like GSK's subsdirectries etc. because entire logo contains only simple coloured oval shape with gsk text in it which can easily fall under fall under this ineligibility requirements.Wallu2 (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wallu2: Given that File:Discover-it.png which also has gradients was deemed below the TOO of the US I'd say the GSK logo would be too. {{PD-ineligible-USonly|UK}} therefore seems appropriate.Jonteemil (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Thank you very much for your assistance. I'm now changing the license because now all my doubts/confusions are clear. Wallu2 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)