Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2023/October

Non-free publicity picture

As a non-expert on non-free content, I was wondering what the general stance is on including a non-free publicity photo from the film instead of a non-free film poster in the infobox of a film. The film in question is Goodnight, Vienna, which, thanks to the URAA, will still be in copyright in the US for a couple of years. It currently uses a publicity photo in the infobox which is incorrectly viewed as free media. I don't want to send it to FfD needlessly if it can simply be converted to non-free use, but I wanted to check in with the editors here who understand those guidelines better than I do. Felix QW (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Felix QW: You can also ask about this at WT:FILM, but I think that a non-free image of a film's poster is preferred for primary identification purposes in the infoboxes of stand-alone articles about films per WP:FILMPOSTER since such posters seem to be a major part of the films branding/marketing. Trying to use a publicity photo instead may have problems meeting WP:NFC#CS and also may involve a bit of WP:NOR unless it is clearly the case that the publicity photo has been the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources and is generally considered to be representative of the the film itself by such sources. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input! I'll bring it up for discussion at FfD, as it seems to depend on the individual circumstances. Felix QW (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone feels like they can contribute something, the discussion can be found here. Felix QW (talk) 12:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Help finding copyright source

I uploaded an image recently of an album cover -- I have *no idea* what its copyrights are. The file should be File:6nenmestart.jpeg Aknip (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I have commented out the image from the two pages it was used in. Non-free images should not be used outside of article space. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 16:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Copyright rules regarding speech synthesis output

I have noticed that nobody here or at Commons has ever discussed copyright rules regarding synthesized speech, which is spoken human language created by computer programs.

1. What is the copyright status of the output of speech synthesis software, with regards to the software's copyright? What about speech synthesis hardware like DECtalk? (The status with regards to the copyright of the text being read is obvious and well-established.)
2. For WP:NFC, what criteria should we apply regarding the use, length, and format of non-free synthesized speech samples in articles about speech synthesizers?
3. I feel that the language of Template:Non-free audio sample does not accurately describe synthesized speech samples which are created by Wikipedia users. What non-free tags should we use for such files?

A large collection of free speech synthesis samples can be found at Commons under c:Category:Speech synthesis and its subcategories. One speech synthesis audio sample tagged as non-free is File:MS Sam.ogg (from Microsoft text-to-speech voices), in which a proprietary program reads a presumably Wikipedian-created text sample. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a question better asked at commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright; I think this is a somewhat complex question and copyright is more their bread and butter than ours. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

We allow MIDI recreations of music in the public domain (as to avoid the performance copyright) as free works, so I would think that as long as there is no license ties to the synthetic voice, and the text that is being spoken is not a copyrighted work, then that should be taken as free. (In contrast: AI generated voices would have the potential copyright issue of source voices that currently leaves the copyright of the generated work in limbo).

If there is some odd licensing of the synthesizer engine that makes its output non-free, then I would say that the sample should be treated as non-free and should likely be at the max limit that we typically allow for audio samples, being 30 seconds and with some lossy re-encoding. Masem (t) 12:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I asked question 1 at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Speech_synthesis. I'm still left hanging on question 2 regarding the suitability of samples per WP:NFCC#8, and question 3 hasn't been addressed but may depend on the answer to question 1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Ernie O'Malley/Helen Hooker

Hello, a bot removed this image – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Hooker#/media/File%3AHelen_Hooker.jpg from this (GA) page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_O%27Malley

The image comes from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Hooker and fair use for it is claimed there.

How am I to proceed? Can the bot be overriden, otherwise the Hooker image will have to be removed from her page, too I imagine. Many thanks Billsmith60 (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Billsmith60: When the bot removed the file from Ernie O'Malley, it left an edit summary that included a link to WP:NFC#Implementation. Did you click on that link and read what's written there? A non-free image is required to have two things: non-free copyright license and a non-free use rationale that is separate and specific to each use of the file. In pretty much all cases, a single copyright is more than sufficient regardless of how many times a non-free file is being used; however, not all non-free uses are equivalent so a separate, specific non-free use rationale needs to be added to the file's page for each time it's being used. if you look at File:Helen_Hooker.jpg, you see that it does have a non-free use rationale for the file's use in Helen Hooker, but it doesn't have one for the O'Malley article; so, the bot correctly removed the file for not complying with non-free content use criterion #10c as it has been tasked to do. There are ten non-free content use criteria that a file needs to satisfy for its use to be considered in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and failing even one of the ten makes a non-free use invalid. In this case, even adding a non-free use rationale for the file's use in the O'Malley article is almost certainly not going to be considered to meet non-free content criterion #1 and non-free content use criterion #8 because such non-free photos are generally only allowed to be used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the subjects of such articles (e.g. a non-free photo of Hooker in a Wikipedia stand-alone biography article about her), but there uses in other articles or in other ways becomes much harder to justify per policy and alternatives to non-free use (e.g. a Wikilink in the O'Malley article to the Hooker) are almost always preferred instead. Of course, this type of thing might seem a little too restrictive, but Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was intentionally developed to be more restrictive than fair use and the policy has been applied as such since it was established. If you somehow feel that the file's use in the O'Malley article can be justified in terms of relevant policy, you can start a discussion about it at WP:FFD and see if a consensus can be established in favor of such a use. Be advised though that simply wanting to use a non-free file in a GA or FA article doesn't make it policy compliant as explained here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand the issue now and will endeavour to find another image, for I cannot envison FFD agreeing that the current one could reasonably be used for the O'Malley article. Many thanks for your assistance. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Image was actually created by subject of biography

The following image was removed from the biography of Cyma Rubin, but she is the author of the copyright for the poster. Here is the image and copyright information below. I would like to request to add the image to the biography:

No_no_nanette.jpg

Rubin, Cyma. K126961. No no Nanette. . Lettering with women dancing & swimming around borders.. By Hilary Knight, author of the print: Cyma Rubin. Colored print; poster. Broadway Properties, Ltd.;. 3 Nov 77; K126961. JRG, 17 DEC 77,CCY 0091984 https://vcc.copyright.gov/browse Starlighsky (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Starlighsky: File:No no nanette.jpg is currently being used for primary identification purposes in No, No, Nanette, which seems fine and in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The reason why the file was removed from Cyma Rubin is because that particular use was not in compliance with said policy; moreover, it wrong encyclopedically to try and use that image in the main infobox of the Rubin article since the primary image of that article should be an image of Rubin herself (if a policy compliant one can be found). None of these things have anything really to do with Rubin being the copyright holder of the poster, but everything to do with whether the file's use in the Rubin article satisfies relevant Wikipedia policy. Generally, in order to use a poster like this in an article about it's creator, there needs to be some sort of sourced critical commentary related directly to the poster itself that goes beyond a simple description like the current content of Cyma Rubin#No, No, Nanette Poster. There's really no need for readers of the Rubin article to see the poster just because it's copyrighted by Rubin any more than there would be to upload non-free images for any of the other works copyrighted by Rubin in that section . A WP:HATNOTE like Template:Main (e.g. {{main|No, No, Nanette}}) at the beginning of the "No, No, Nanette" section linking the Rubin article to the article about the play seems to be more than a sufficient alternative to another non-free use per WP:FREER in this case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. Hilary Knight was the illustrator, and her biography is about her illustration career. Can it be used in her article? Starlighsky (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

​ Perhaps, but not in the main infobox since that should be a photo of Knight. Moreover, the Knight article is rather poorly sourced as it is and seems to have more pressing issues that need attention before worrying about images. Non-free images of the work of illustrators like Knight can sometimes be used as representative examples of their particular style or technique, but usually only when the work itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources as explained here. Simply adding more unsourced commentary about the poster to an already poorly sourced article is probably not a very wise thing to do since purely WP:DECORATIVE types of non-free use aren't really considered policy compliant and unsourced content can be removed at any time per WP:BURDEN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I improved the article with a reference and so on. I can improve it some more.

The image is referenced as illustrated by her in its copyright documentation, but I understand the issue overall. Starlighsky (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-free Philippine statue

I'm not sure File:Ph-mm-quezon city-edsa-ortigas ave.-ortigas center-edsa shrine (2015) 01.JPG is correctly licensed if it's not OK for Commons per c:COM:FOP Philippines. It seems that if that's truly the case, then the file would need to be treated as non-free for Wikipedia purposes, which means that many if not all of its current uses would need to be assessed in terms of WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that could save its free status would be de minimis, I think, but that may be tough for a statue in the centre of the image, in the foreground. After all, the statue is prominent enough that it wasn't even deemed necessary to crop it for use on the statue's page. Otherwise, since the US also does not have FoP for statues, the fact that enWikipedia only cares about US copyright would not help. Felix QW (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Screenshot taken from a video

Hi there, can I confirm that it is OK to upload a screenshot of the rider featured in this Wikipedia video. File:Behind The Scenes with Leon Madsen - Slovenian SGP.webm Thought best to check first. Many thanks Pyeongchang (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks perfectly fine to me, as long as you note the original source in the file description. Felix QW (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

and you can upload that on Commons too, just make sure to reuse the same license (CC-BY-3.0). There's a template there, "extractedfrom" that can help identify the original image. Masem (t) 01:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Album cover

Hello, I wanted to upload a better quality version of an album cover that I took from Discogs. Would that be acceptable?

Original file: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SlashDotDash-FatboySlim.jpg

Updated cover that I wanted to use: https://www.discogs.com/release/619640-Fatboy-Slim-Slash-Dot-Dash/image/SW1hZ2U6Mzk1NDI4NjQ=

From TomGreene16 (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Non-free content, and WP:IMAGERES in particular. The use of low-resolution images for album covers is normal practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

How do I add a Fair Use Rationale?

I added a file of the Bandar Seri Begawan municipal department's logo, but I need to add a fair use rationale. How do I add one, and what is the format for one? Sci Show With Moh (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Add the template {{Non-free use rationale logo}} to the File page for the image. That page tells you what you need to fill in within the template fields. Masem (t) 03:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Double checking if this complies with image use policy

Hello, I'm currently reviewing the Vance Monument article under good article nominations and wanted to see if all of the images comply with the image use policy. I wanted to see how copyright status works on public monuments. Chilicave (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

per c:COM:FOP, there is only public domain for fixed, occupyable buildings in the US, a monument like that would have to be treated as non-free. We'd reasonably allow one free photograph of that in articles per NFC policy. Masem (t) 00:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

A cursory look at the article dates the monument to the 1890s. The copyright on the monument should be expired. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

For clarification I've added a separate copyright tag for the monument. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 09:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Contextual significance of "infographic" file

I am wondering about the suitability of File:Union Bank Original Office Location Morrisville 1891.jpg on Union Bank (Morrisville, Vermont). In my view this doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC#8: It doesn't seem to convey much that couldn't be covered with text alone. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The current non-free use rationale centers around the picture of the building within the graphic. Is this sufficient? I'm not sure it is since there isn't really any commentary on the building itself in the article. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It would seem that if the main reason for using this "graphic" is to show a picture of the building, then that would be a failure of WP:FREER. There's FOP for builidings or other inhabitable structures located in the US per c:COM:FOP United States; so a photo of the existing building could be taken and uploaded to Commons without needing to worry about violating any copyright on the design of the building. If the point is to show the building as it appeared in 1891, then most likely any photo that can be found from that period would be too old to be still eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:HIRTLE and thus could be uploaded to Commons as {{PD-US}} or something similar. The text information on "graphic" seems to be nothing more that simple facts which are generally not eligible for copyright protection in their own right. Even if the presentation of the text was considered copyrightable, it would still fail FREER since the same information could simply be added to the article as text per WP:TEXTASIMAGES. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Nominated at FfD. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 09:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Assessing PD ineligible on File:Ive - Wave.png

I want to know if this image might meet pd-ineligible and can thus be transferred to Commons or not. The last three covers - Kitsch, I've Ive, and I Want (song) all appear to be PD text. I want to ask for feedback on whether the arrangement here is sufficient enough to be copyrightable. Awesome Aasim 20:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

One thing I do know for sure - de minimis certainly does not apply. Awesome Aasim 20:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It's all text. There's nothing particularly creative about the way it was arranged. I will relicense it as {{PD-Text}}. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 03:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about the others. They have some effects applied. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Fyi, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ive - Wave Cover.jpg, image is not suitable for Commons. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This could be tagged {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. The logo seems to be below TOO in the US based on the examples at c:COM:TOO US. (Also note that the logo itself is on Commons at File:Ive logo (Black).svg.) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 09:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Lebanese street sign photo

File:Ruegeorgepost.jpg is a photo of a Lebanese street signs uploaded back in 2011 by Linaduliban. The License for the photo is fine (assuming it is Linaduliban's "own work"), but the copyright statuses of the signs themselves probably needs to be assessed. There's only very limited freedom of panorama under Lebanese copyright law per c:COM:FOP Lebanon and it can be applied to this photo. Signs and noticeboards are often eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:CB#Noticeboards and signs, but these might possibly be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection since they appear to be nothing more than text. There's no information about Lebanon's threshold of originality given at c:COM:Lebanon, but perhaps Lebanon's TOO is similar to c:COM:TOO France given that it was once administered by France during the last century. If there's no way to sort the copyright status of the signs out under Lebanese copyright law, then perhaps it might be a good idea to add {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} as the license for the signs in addition to the license added for the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

FUR issues at Campbell's Soup Cans

I am trying to address FUR concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2 for Campbell's Soup Cans. This is a WP:FFA that had 11 non-free media pieces during the WP:FAR that got it delisted 2 and a half years ago. It had 7 WP:NFCC concerns when I initiated the current WP:FAC nomination. Right now I am getting feedback that of the 6 remaining FURs only one is sufficient. I am trying to understand whether I actually have to remove all 5 of the others or whether any of the other 5 present visual content that is important enough justify. I.e., are there any that if I knew what to include in the FUR would be acceptable.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• I really need help ironing out the FURs here if I am going to return this to FA status. I am requesting assistance from those who have assessed my current pop art painting FAs:

1. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Look Mickey/archive1 User:J Milburn did the image review. (Semi retired, but has 500 edits since April 10, 2023)
2. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drowning Girl/archive1 User:GermanJoe did the image review. (Last edit October 2020)
3. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2 User:Masem did the image review (500 edits since August 21, 2023)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that because many of the NFC uses outside of the original image are just small variations on the original image, they fail NFCC#1 and NFCC#3, unless there is significant discussion about these small changes from sources, more than just saying that they exist. Masem (t) 04:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Masem would you be willing to work with me file by file to fine tune each files relavance in preparation for an FAC run.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Can you confirm that File:Black font crop from Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg and File:Cheddar Cheese crop from Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg would fail NFCC even if I track down a source that describes the detail of these variances?
2. Regarding File:Warhol Campbell's Soup Can (Tomato) 1962 Pencil on paper.jpg The topic of stenciling is mentioned about a half dozen times in the article. Is there an approach (FUR/text tweaks) that would make this acceptable?
3. The text related to File:Small Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962.jpg says more than that this version existed. It says that it was a record-setting sale. Can FUR/text be tweaked to make this acceptable?
4. File:20070624 Campbell's Soup Cans - Milwaukee Art Museum.JPG represents one of the main alternate referents of the phrase Campbell's Soup Cans because in 1965 this was the type of Campbell's Soup can he was producing. Can FUR/text be tweaked to make this acceptable?
   1. Also, if I crop out one of the canvases, does that help?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
5. File:Campbell's Soup I.jpg and File:Campbell's Soup Cans II.jpg seem essential to me because of the confusion on subject matter discussed in the text (both WP:LEAD and main body) Can FUR/text be tweaked to make this acceptable?

There are a host of other files not as closely related to your comment that I would also seek guidance on?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

On 1, I can't see how these can be justified just because the text of the label was changed from the original soup image, even if there's sources discussing this change. That's something that can be communicated via text (which is a valid replacement for a non-free image).

On 2, I can see keeping the sketch as a basis for the original work as to show Warhol's process in conjunction with the sources.

On 3, I'm trying to see how there's any justification for a visual need for the image, like for 1, its just a visual image of a torn label off a can.

On 4, I think that the image is okay in that it is far more difficult to express in words, and there's more discussion on this series.

On 5, I can't really see why these are necessary because the only change is the production means, the images are still of soup cans which have already been demonstrated on this page sufficiently.

Also: Be aware that the main lede image, since it was made by MOMA but not by the copyright holder (the Warhol foundation), is considered to be 32 different non-free images in a montage and counts heavily against NFCC. It would be far better to have a single can image in the lede, since again, the only major differences that seem to be discussed in the article are the text on the can labels, which prose can describe instead. Masem (t) 21:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• I really need advice on a file-by-file basis (most importantly, the 5 issues above). I have some additional modern art painting FAs, which were reviewed for images by the following people, who I hope might consider lending their expertise:

1. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom of Worship (painting)/archive1 User:Crisco 1492 did the image reviews. (has 500 edits since February 7, 2023)
2. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom from Want (painting)/archive1 User:Tezero did the image review. (no edits since October 30, 2019)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• User:Masem thank you so much for taking time with these images. I apologize that I am responding with resistance. I hope to enlighten the reader as much as possible.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Removed. These are really just crops of the main image. I concede these images.
2. If the image is OK, do you have advice on the current FURs.
3. I spent some time (catching the final day of the Keith Haring exhibition) at The Broad today, which is where this particular image is housed. According to today's audio tour this is one of 6 torn can label Warhol paintings. In the context of this article, we state that there are several things described as Campbell's soup cans. The most important of these are 1. The main 32 from 61/62, 2. The multi-colored series from 65, 3. The other variations of the basic can from 61/62, 4. the screenprints from 68/69 and 5. reversed/inverted versions from the 1970s. I think the importance of this image is that it is a presentation of #3. Is a reader really able to picture this with words alone. Whereas 1 is about differences that are barely protectible (lettering differences), the tearing of labels is a much more protectible form of art that makes this uniqueness a sort of high art. This is not expressable in words, IMO.
4. If 4 is OK, do you have advice on the FURs?
5. As they are presented, it is hard to tell a canvas from a screenprint. What we are showing is the difference between a 4x8 grid and 2x5 grids. Much is made in prose in various sources about this 4x8 grid as well as the decision that this work is a set that should not be split up. I could probable present a half dozen sources that make a big deal of both the grid presentation and the decision to keep the set together.
6. regarding the main image, i reiterate that the sources about the subject make a big deal about how they are presented (as a grid) and that they were declared to be a set.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
7. Also, can you check in on other images. Can you assess whether any other images are contentious?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

   For point# 2, I'm not sure what more you need outside to say that the sketch is discussed from sources in the article, so the article is using the image to show how one version of this image was made. You have that implied by showing it is a silkscreen in the rationale so that's good.

   If you can explain this better for #3 beyond just saying it was one of a smaller series showing torn can label (the mere existence), then it could be justified. Right now you only mention it in passing so that really doesn't help.

   Rationale for #4 should explain the aspects that sourced discussion give on these images (that they were unique enough for their own expidition). Also, I dunno if you can in the article but comparing the coloration to his color-playing Monroe or Orange Prince series and how this is different from those.

   for #5 + #6 - I can appreciate that one grid image to show the impact of the gridded approach verses a single image is fine, but whether that is the lede image, or one of these smaller grids, I don't know. I just think you only need one such image.

   The other images on the page all see to be free licenses. That said, and this may be a question to pose at Commons, is the photo of the actual colored cans. You can see the copyrighted text about the label on the cans, so the question becomes if the labels are shown in less-than-sufficient detail to qualify for de minimus. I anticipate you might have problems with that because the whole point of the photograph is to highlight the unique labels. Masem (t) 00:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• I have expanded the stencil FUR to include sourced content.
• I am thinking about how to buff up the torn variation content. Other than at the museum where it is housed, I have never seen torn cans as a separate subject. Most sources say that in the 1961-62 period Warhol did a lot of other Campbell's Soup content in addition to the full set of 32. The discussions usually say he produced variations on the theme and one source says about 20 such variations survived. These include torn labels as well as bent cans as well as other slight variations. The discussion will not just be on torn cans, but rather variations on the straight up can presentation.
• What is "color-playing Monroe or Orange Prince series" all about. I have never heard of this issue.
• I have removed the other grids. I am not sure that is really a good service to the readers. There is one museum that has the original set of paint canvases and then there are several museums that have the screen print sets. When these are described by the same name as this main series, are we helping the reader enough without the fair use of the grid that is at their museum in this article. Can we count on them being served by the split out articles for the screenprints?
• The question is whether the other images are properly licensed on commons.
• Please clarify what the de minimus prose issue is on the colored cans. How am I suppose to pursue resolution?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Masem:--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  I meant like how in the Orange Prince series, its the same art but each with a unique variation of color, which seems to be a common recurance in Wahlor's output. I don't know if that's ever been tied to that with the colors can versions.

  If there are already separate articles for the smaller grids, then 100% yes we rely on those articles to support the NFC but not this one. We minimize repetition of the same NFC image.

  You'll have to see how Commons says about it. Typically, if we photograph a copyrighted object, we can only consider the photograph as free and the copyrighted element as de minimis if it is not the focus of the photograph. Eg: If I were to photograph a car on the road (normally free) but there's a store logo in the far background, that logo would be in de minimis if my photograph were centered solely on the car. But here the cans are clearly the subject of the photo so that may make it more difficult. Masem (t) 12:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Masem:, Is Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Additional_images_at_w:Campbell's_Soup_Cans the proper forum to get an assessment from Commons?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  Most likely yes. Masem (t) 12:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• I am now feeling that "color-playing Monroe or Orange Prince series" refer to Warhol's celebrity screenprint works. Monroe is is most famous/notable screenprint subject with some sources saying his 1962 Monroes (Marilyn Diptych or Gold Marilyn Monroe— not exactly sure which article is the proper link) rival the Campbells Soup Cans in terms of importance. Elvis and Jackie O are also quite notable.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• @Masem:, At Commons, I have been pointed to Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, which relies on Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. to determine fair use of the Prince screenprint. So I now know what you are talking about. Above were you talking about File:TAG Andy Warhol Soup Can 01.jpg and File:TAG Andy Warhol Soup Can 02.jpg or File:The Souper Dress, American paper dress, 1967 (cropped).jpg or both. Also, can you comment on the newly added File:Campbell tomato soup ad 1968.jpg and File:Campbell's Condensed Tomato Soup, 1905.jpg.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I meant the different color screenprints.

  The issue of de minimum actually might apply to all three (Can 01, Can 02, and dress), and again, where we draw that line is probably a question better at Commons. Again, the idea is that we dont want the copyrighted item to appear to be the focus but something that happened to be caught in frame of what was meant to be the focus.

  I see nothing wrong with either ad files as they appear to have no copyright markings and were out prior to 1976. Masem (t) 23:48, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  User:Masem, What about File:Campbells.jpg?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think that one might actually be fine. The cans are utility objects and can't be copyrighted. As for the label and branding, it only consists of fonts, simple shapes (red and white bars), except for the little shield in the center. But it appears so small and at an obtuse angle that it may qualify as de minimus there. That would be another thing to ask in the same vein as the other images. Masem (t) 23:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  based on Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines, I am fairly certain the can fronts are going to have to go, but I am still in discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  User:Masem, I am trying to understand how your perspective differs from an FAC image review. It seems that you are focused more on assessing 4 images in the article that are subject to FURs housed on WP. You suggest that Commons assess whether their own licenses justify general free use of images housed there. I think the four FURred images are fine now. I have rearranged the torn labels content so that three consecutive paragraphs discuss torn labels, which should make File:Small Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962.jpg better situated in the article. Can you review the 4 remaining images with FURS. Then could you assess whether the free images are appropriately included (since I think all but one that I may have to remove have passed at Commons) based on relevance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• User:Masem the last FAC said that images were an issue and WP:PR requires you to address issues from prior reviews before submission. So I need an assessment of whether the current set of images has remaining issues.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I see no issues now with the non free images and their rationale at this point. The free images from commons all appear to be fine, as long as their they (commons) have no issues with the photo of the real product cans (plain or colored). Masem (t) 13:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Their rationale for the cans is that they are little changed from the 1905 ad which means the copyright on the logo has expired. Thanks for spending a lot of time with this article's set of images. Your expertise is appreciated.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Copyright Update Issues

I'm relatively new to uploading files, so was being overly cautious with the copyright restrictions for these photos. I have since learned that since they're CSPAN, they'e public domain and unrestricted. If anyone knows how to update this by themselves or tell me how to do so, I would be greatly appreciated. The files are below. Thanks.

File:Susan Cole.png

File:Tylease Alli.png DougDommadome (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

CSPAN footage from the House or Senate floor is definitely in the public domain (their copyright page says that). You can change the non-free to a public domain license using {{PD-because}}, and in the reason field, explain that it is CSPAN footage of the House/Senate floor and thus in the public domain. But you should consider moving those to Commons then, which does have a dedicated "PD-CSPAN" license for that purpose. --Masem (t) 03:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Appreciated, do I just remove the licensing section and just have the PD-because template in the summary section? DougDommadome (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I just edited the license tag at Commons to use the dedicated template. Felix QW (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)