Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Status of File:Nichelle Nichols, NASA Recruiter - GPN-2004-00017.jpg

Would someone please take a look at what I wrote at File talk:Nichelle Nichols, NASA Recruiter - GPN-2004-00017.jpg? I'm thinking this well-known and very useful image should nevertheless be struck as lacking a solid justification for its presence. Thanks. 73.92.193.211 (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 73.92.193.211. That's a file uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, which is technically a separate Wikimedia Foundation project with it's only policies and guidelines. Commons is mainly concerned with whether the files it hosts are properly licensed; it's not really concerned with how or if the files are being used in Wikipedia articles. So, if you think the file has licensing problems, you're going to need to discuss them on Commons.

On the other hand, if you think the file shouldn't be used in a certain Wikipedia article, then you can be WP:BOLD and remove the file; just make sure to leave a clear edit summary explaining why. If another editor re-adds the file, then you should follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and discuss your concerns on the relevant article's talk page and see if you can establish a consensus about the file's use. Once again though, removing the file from articles will not lead to its deletion from Commons; that's something you'll have to request on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Although we don't know the specific reason upon which the NASA statement is based, we do know that NASA has been consistently distributing this photo for many decades, and still does, as a photo that does not have copyright restrictions. If that was not true, and if it infringed a copyright, one would think that it would have been corrected by now. There are some reasons why the photo can be in the public domain. Whoever took the original picture may have published it without a copyright notice in the first place. Or, if there ever was a copyright, they could have released it. The explicit statement from NASA is plausible and, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, why should it not be believed? The file has already survived a deletion discussion on Commons. Considering all that, I'm not sure that there would be any benefit for anyone to persist in wanting to delete this file. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The license status was satisfactorily resolved in a Commons discussion ten years ago: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nichelle-Nichols-GPN-2004-00017.jpg. Elizium23 (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Files deleted after rationale update

Hi! The non-free use rationale was given quite clearly in each of the following images, and was clarified additionally after the bot flagged the images. The files seem to have been deleted nonetheless.

File:Banting Institute 1930.jpg
File:Building 1923.jpg
File:Connaught Insulin 1925.jpg
File:Connaught insulin stills 1923.jpg
File:Connaught Interior 1923.jpg
File:Iletin 1922.jpg

The images are historically significant and serve a contextual and educational purpose in the article. They are also too small for any sort of meaningful reproduction.

I'd appreciate clarification and ask that the images be restored. Utl jung (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for @Explicit: - X201 (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi!, A rationale may have been given, but it may not have been convincing. Of course, everything, texts and images, in articles is expected to be significant and to serve an educational purpose in the articles. That's the idea of an encyclopedia. But the fact that something, text or image, would be relevant and useful in an article, is not a trump card that allows to ignore copyright and to use any copyrighted material any time we want. We might as well say that the notion of copyright has no effect. The exception of fair use implies a use in a context of a critical commentary about the work that is copyrighted. When considering the notion of fair use, the three basic questions to ask, before anything else, are: What work is copyrighted? Who is the creator of this work? Is the commentary either about that work or about that author?

For example, let's say we would like to have a photo of an insulin still in an article.

Insulin stills are not copyrighted artworks. But if they were copyrighted artworks, and if you could take a photo of one of them in a museum, you could take a photo and place the photographic component of your photo under a free license, and then you could use your free photographic work in fair use in a Wikipedia article in the context of a commentary about that insulin still or about the creative work of the artist who designed it. That would be a fair use because the commentary would be about the copyrighted artwork or about the work of the artist-designer.

But, as we said, insulin stills are not copyrighted. In a photo like Connaught insulin stills 1923.jpg, I guess that you are assuming that the creative work of the photographer is copyrighted. If the photographic work of the photographer is the copyrighted element, then you could use a copy of that photo in fair use in a Wikipedia article in the context of a commentary about the original photographic features expressed in that photo (e.g. a discussion of how the photographer made use of lights and shadows and angles, etc.) or about how this photo is an example of the photographic career of the photographer. It would be fair use because the commentary would be about the copyrighted work or about its author. Using it in an article about diabetes and insulin would not be fair use because the context is not about the copyrighted work, the work of the photographer.

But in the case of the photos listed at the beginning of the section: I can't look at them while they are deleted, but are they something like this and this? What is the rationale leading to your conclusion that they are not in the public domain? What is the difference of status between those files and, for example, some files in Commons:Category:Frederick Banting? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Utl jung. As somewhat pointed out above, there are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be met each time a non-free file is used. Providing a non-free use rationale is (as explained in WP:JUSTONE) one (actually one part of one) of these criteria; so, while providing a non-free use rationale can help others better understand why a non-free file is being used in a certain way, it doesn't automatically mean that the non-free use meets all ten non-free content use criteria. Explict is quite experienced when it comes to non-free content use, only deletes files which clearly violate Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. It's possible a mistake was made, but the best thing to do would probably be to post a message on Explcit's user talk page and ask for clarification. As for whether the images are historically significant, you might want to take a look at WP:ITSHISTORIC. Being an old image or an image of an historic event, etc. is not necessarily the same as being a historically significant image, and generally the image itself has to have been referred to as "historically significant" in reliable sources for it to be treated as such for Wikipedia's non-free content purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Utl_jung, I took a look at the deleted photos and their rationales. First, it appears all six nonfree images were intended for use in a single article. That is way beyond excessive for almost any article. Even more than one gets into questionable territory. Secondly, Marchjuly is absolutely right. Nonfree images can only be used when they are essential. In this case, the rationale does not make clear how the reader must see the image to understand something, and cannot gain adequate knowledge from reading the article text alone. Finally, these images may not even be nonfree. If they really were published that long ago with no copyright notices, they may be in the public domain. But if they are still indeed under copyright, the deletions were correct and the images may not be used. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright of a painting

The family of Stephen J. Herben Jr. has an oil painting by an unknown artist, painted c. 1930–45 (apparently dated based on his appearance in the portrait). Assuming they have no issues with using it on Wikipedia, would there be any copyright issues in doing so? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Usernameunique, yes, there would be. If the date of the painting is unknown, it would also be unknown whether it's in the public domain or not. A work from between 1930 and 1945 certainly still could be under copyright, and without further knowledge of its provenance and the time it was created, it would be impossible to find out if it is. That aside, the painter (or their heirs), not the owner of a painting, generally holds the copyright to the painting, unless copyright was explicitly transferred, so the owners of the painting do not have the right to authorize others to copy the work (unless, again, they have an agreement from the painter explicitly transfering those rights, in which case they would know who the painter is to begin with). And all that aside—if the painter is unknown, what would be the proposed use for it anyway? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Assuming the portrait is by a US artist or is located in the US then it's going to be in copyright for a long time yet - see c:Commons:Hirtle chart. The only glimmer of hope would be if it could be established that the portrait has been published in which case it might be a public domain item due to lack of compliance with the copyright processes then in force. Nthep (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade & Nthep, thanks for your responses. The point of using the painting would be to provide an image of its subject, Stephen J. Herben Jr. (who is currently only shown in a degraded newspaper photograph). Nthep, assuming I'm reading the chart correctly, it looks like 120 years from ~1930–45 if it's unpublished, so yikes. When would it have needed to be published, and how does one "publish" a painting? --Usernameunique (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That's...complex, to say the least, as is often true with copyright law. If the painting were only ever privately owned and never exhibited to the public, put in a book of art, etc., it very likely is considered "unpublished". If it ever were exhibited, or especially if it were published in a book of artworks or the like (with the copyright holder's permission, a publication that is itself infringing doesn't generally trigger the "publication" rules), the publication date would generally be considered the date of that work. There's a good overview of the different wrinkles to it here ([1]), but the answer is that if it's post-1909, there's no simple answer. In your particular case, it sounds like the work might indeed be "unpublished" and subject to those rules. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and one more wrinkle: At that time, there were certain formalities that had to be followed in order for a work to obtain copyright; it wasn't automatic upon creation like today. If this was a privately commissioned portrait, it is entirely possible that the artist never bothered with those and the painting could be PD for that reason. If there were some way to find out who painted it, then it might be possible to see if the work was properly registered, but without knowing that, it's near impossible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Seraphimblade. I'll follow up with the person who has it to see if she has any more information. I understand that she hasn't been able to find out who painted it. At a guess, it was a very informal commission (maybe by one of his students at Bryn Mawr?), but that's pure speculation. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

using a PGI logo on page for a PGI product?

Is it fair use of the EU PGI logo at File:PGI-Logo.svg on the page of an agricultural product that has that designation, in this case Sorana bean? It seems like it's an identifier useful to the reader, but I'm not seeing it used on other articles for any of the products and thought there might be a reason. --valereee (talk) 11:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: no, because all the information you want to include can be conveyed by using your own words: e.g. "the product has been certified for protected geographical indication (PGI) in the EU". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Finnusertop, how do I convey "this is what it the certification looks like so you'll know what to look for on a label." :D --valereee (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Valereee, you convey it by stating that the product has been licensed by the PGI and wikilinking to the article on that body. Nonfree logos should generally be used only in the article about their owners and only there, not splattered everywhere they're mentioned. Readers wanting to know more about the certifying body can click on the wikilink, but use just to say "Look for this logo" violates Wikipedia is not an instruction manual and decorative use. Use there is not essential and is deliberately restricted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In addition, seeing this kind of stuff: Production is limited to an extremely small microclimate area with conditions considered excellent for growing this type of bean, and the bean is so prized that it has commanded prices six to ten times that of other cannellini-type beans. makes my finger really itchy on the G11 trigger. Wikipedia does not permit advertising or promotion of anyone or anything, so please fix that to be actually neutral. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, totally open to a new phrasing on that. Prized is a problem, I agree...maybe 'the bean is in such high demand' ? --valereee (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hrm. I don't know that that's the part that even so much caught my attention, but it's probably an issue too. It hasn't "commanded prices", it "is priced at". But it's not necessarily "prized", it's just relatively rare, so yes, that works too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I changed it to 'prices are six to ten etc...', feedback appreciated! --valereee (talk) valereee (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Family Portrait of Jacob Eugene Duryee

Jacob Duryee was my great-grandfather and he was a Brigadier General in the Civil War. I created the original wiki page in 2007, but haven't touched it since, and that about sums up all of my experience editing on Wikipedia. I'm unsure about several things and would appreciate guidance. Since its creation, the wiki page had a portrait of Jacob I scanned from his funeral notice which appeared in the Los Angeles Times in 1918. Within the past couple of weeks, someone has replaced that image with an image of a monument to him and his troops at the site of the Battle of Antietam. While I certainly respect the image, it lacks some of the intimacy the portrait conveyed. In the ensuing years since I created the page and put in the scanned newspaper photo, I've come across a wonderful picture of Jacob, his mother, his son, and his grandson that I would like to insert above the current image of the memorial with a caption naming all of the people and their relationship to Jacob. The photo has been in the family since it was first taken. The name of the photographer is unavailable - but it dates from around 1897 or '98, so I'm not sure if copyright is even an issue. With all the warnings about copyright and all the different options for uploading, I would really appreciate any guidance in this matter. What method would be best for uploading the image? Should I upload it to the Commons, or just to Wikipedia? Is there some way of attributing the photo to family archives, or is attribution not an issue with images like this? Lastly, are there any concerns about family members editing wiki pages of well-known people? I seem to remember some communication from Wikipedia around that subject when I created the page. Any discussion around these points would be really valuable to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kutsavi (talk • contribs) 20:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

About the first point, you uploaded File:Jacobeduryee1.jpg on 25 August 2007 but, as far as I can tell from the list of your edits and from the history of the article, you never inserted the image in the article. So, this image still remains unused, and the article never had any image before 20 January 2018, when a contributor added the image of the monument. You can still insert your image in the article, if you still want. Better 12 years later than never, I guess. About the group photo, you can have a look at this chart to determine the copyright status. It is clearly a professional image, so the photographer was probably known and it can't be assumed to be an anonymous photo. I'm sure you already did some research but maybe you can do some more research, see what professional photographers were active in the area at the time, try to find clues, etc. If you upload the file without having found its origin, you should mention your family archives as your immediate source, but you can't attribute the authorship to your family archives, because obviously the family archives did not create the photograph. About your last question, you can look at WP:COI and see if and how it may apply. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Vintage cigarette commercials

UCSF Tobacco Industry Videos has a lot of cigarette commercials at archive.org. Many may be in the public domain.

https://archive.org/details/WinstonCigaretteCommecial-TheFlintstones It says it is in the "Public Domain".

https://archive.org/details/1956CommercialForKentCigarettes It says "Public Domain Mark 1.0".

I would like to check if these two videos are actually in the public domain. If they are I would like them both uploaded. QuackGuru (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think both can be uploaded. See {{PD-US-no-notice}}. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Diane Ellingson Smith Infobox Photo

I'd like to upload a photo to the English Wikipedia that fits all ten of the non-free use criteria, but I'm not sure how the Summary should look. Going off of all the applicable instructions I could find, here's what I've come up with, but I'm not sure what descriptions should go with the different categories, where the permission tags should go, etc.:

{{Information
|description={{en|1=[[:en:Diane Ellingson Smith at 2002 Winter Olympics Torch Relay]]}}
|date=2002
|source=http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/newsevents/news2002/news2132002.htm
|author=Tom Smart
|permission={{Non-free biog-pic}}{{Non-free Olympics media}}
}}
{{Non-free use rationale 2
<!--Obligatory fields-->
| Description    = Diane Ellingson Smith at 2002 Winter Olympics Torch Relay
| Author         = Tom Smart
| Source         = http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/newsevents/news2002/news2132002.htm
| Article        = Diane Ellingson Smith
| Purpose        = infobox
| Replaceability = What goes here?
| Minimality     = What goes here?
| Commercial     = What goes here?
<!--Optional/expert fields-->
| Date                =
| Publication         =
| Replaceability_text =
| Other information   =
}}

=== Fair use for image in [[Diane Ellingson Smith]] ===
This image fits all ten of Wikipedia's non-free criteria, because:
# There's no free equivalent.
# It won't replace the original market role and is only being used for informational purposes.
# It is a historically significant photo of a famous event (the Olympics) and individual (see draft for Diane Ellingson Smith article for more details) where both are discussed in the article.
# Its quality is not conducive to re-use elsewhere.
# It has been previously published elsewhere <ref>http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/newsevents/news2002/news2132002.htm</ref>
# It will be in at least one article—the [[Diane Ellingson Smith]] article.

Michemily (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Michemily. Wikipedia does generally allow non-free images of deceased person to be used for primary identification in a stand-alone article about the person in question (as explained in item 10 of WP:NFCI), but only when there's no reasonable expectation of a freely licensed equivalent image being created or found which can serve the same basic encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one per WP:FREER. A free equivalent doesn't have to be a freely licensed version of non-free image; it can be a different image altogether but one which is sufficient enough to serve purpose of primary identification. Since Draft:Diane Ellingson Smith seem to have just died with in the past few days and since she was a Para-Olympic athlete, there might actually be a freely licensed image out there somewhere which can be found and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or someone might be willing to release a copyright image under a free image that Wikipedia accepts per WP:COPYREQ. Although there's no set period of time that needs to pass before a person has died and when a non-free image is considered OK to use, it's generally going to be expected that the person wanting to upload and use a non-free image has made a reasonable effort to find a free equivalent first. In order words, the default is not necessarily assume that a non-free image is automatically OK to use as soon as person has died. The meaning of "reasonable effort" is a bit subjective, but I think it would likely be considered to doing something a little more that simply Googling "free images of Diane Ellingson Smith" and deciding to use a non-free one if your search comes up empty. At the same time, it also doesn't mean badgering the family and friends of persons who just died to try and get them to release an under a free license. So, perhaps you can clarify some of the ways you've tried to find a free equivalent.

As for a non-free image, the first things is that non-free files need to be used in at least one article (WP:NFCC#7) and can only be used in article's (WP:NFCC#9); so, you cannot use the file in the draft you're working on and should wait until the draft has been approved (see WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts) before uploading the file. If you upload the file and there's no policy-compliant way to use it, it will only be deleted per WP:F5. For the file copyright license, I would suggest Template:Non-free biog pic and for the non-free use rationale I would suggest Template:Non-free use rationale biog. Make sure you provide as much about the file's source and copyright ownership as possible per WP:NFCC#10a and also make sure that you steer clear of anything from a photo agency like Getty Images per item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI since such images are almost never accepted and usually end up deleted per WP:F7. If you want to use the photo found here and there are no WP:FREER issues, then it would probably be better to find the original article where the photo first appeared and use that as the source instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit in response to User:Marchjuly: I have sent requests to four sources for permission to use an image and have not heard back from any of them despite follow-up. I still don't have the answer to how to fill in the missing categories and how to format them. Would very much appreciate any guidance there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michemily (talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Michemily: First, please try to WP:SIGN your talk page posts. The easiest way to do this is explained in WP:TILDE.

Elligson-Smith died on Friday, July 12; so, if you sent out requests to use some photos shorty after she died, then only a few days have passed and two of those days were on the weekend which might mean that your emails haven’t been read yet. Even if you do eventually receive replies and these replies are “no”, non-free files cannot be used in drafts and your draft is currently awaiting WP:AFC review. It could take quite some time before your draft is reviewed, and then more time before it’s approved; so, you should wait until the draft has been approved before you upload a non-free file for use in the draft. If you do so before that time, the file will only likely end up deleted.

About the licensing and non-free use rationale for the file, you don't really need to do things the way you’ve done them above in your original post. Instead of using Template:Non-free use rationale 2, it would be easier to use Template:Non-free use rationale biog. If you use the latter template (specifically “the minimum required for a deceased person” given as one of the examples in the template’s documentation) and fill in the required primary parameters, the missing categories should be completed automatically. You also will not need to use Template:Information if you do this because the non-free use rationale can provide the same information as that template. For the copyright licenses, it can make things easier to add the to a separate section of the file’s page (many editors call this section “Licensing”) instead of adding them to the |permission= parameter of the non-free use rationale template.

You can practice how to format the non-free use rationale I’m suggesting in your user sandbox (User:Michemily/sandbox). Then, when the draft you’re working on has been approved and you’re ready to upload and the image to the article, you can post a request again here with a link to your sandbox and ask someone to check things once again. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

photo tags

Adding a photograph taken specifically for use on Wikipedia (with permission for use, obviously), what is the correct tag or coding to be used so the threats of deletion will cease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpack (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We need permission from the person who took the photo, who would be the copyright holder, not from anybody else. He or she needs to explicitly license the photo for use here and elsewhere--Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC) under one of the Creative Commons licenses we accept. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wimbledon single-elimination bracket photo

I attended last week's Wimbledon tennis tournament and took photos of the large physical single-elimination brackets they had onsite. They are the nicest physical tournament bracket displays I have ever seen and I wanted to use a photo to illustrate, at least, the single-elimination tournament article.

Argument it's copyrighted by the Wimbledon tennis club: The choices of color and font, and the arrangement of some of the data presented, are creative choices that (the argument goes) meet the minimum threshold for copyrightability. Some photos include about half of the Wimbledon logo within the photo.

Argument against: Those creative choices are minimal; the board is primarily functional, presenting the tournament bracket information in a straightforward way.

I'm happy to upload the photo or a part of it if someone can tell me where to upload a potentially infringing image. Thanks - I went to Wimbledon (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey User:I went to Wimbledon. Unfortunately, the threshold for originality in the UK is very low compared to other places such as the US. I don't personally recommend uploading any UK pictures on the basis of TOO. GMG^talk 15:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree here with GMG. There might be a call for the board not to pass the TOO in the US or the like, but in the UK, it's "sweat of the brow" and decisions likes color and font can enter into copyright there. --Masem (t) 15:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

From what I understand, images (such as logos) of foreign origin that are above the TOO in their source country but which are below the US TOO can be accepted on the English Wikipedia under {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. There is the question as to whether freely-licensed photos of non-US works could be treated in the same way. --Elegie (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, GreenMeansGo and Masem. Last ditch try: What if the photo were taken by an American on a visit, who then uploaded the photo from home in America? I went to Wimbledon (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. I know there's some issued on freedom of panorama related to building arch that makes that an interesting case, but I would say the board should be treated as fixed art, which makes it a bit different. The only way I could see it getting as free is if the board were way small and to the side in a more wide-view of Wimbledon, as to meet the de minimus concept.   Or yet another alternative but will take more work is to find sourced discussed about the quality of these bracket boards, as then there's a logical reason to use a photo under NFCC. --Masem (t) 16:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the law goes by location of creation rather than citizenship of creator? GMG^talk 16:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Citizenship doesn't matter, surely, but I was hoping the country of publication would. I went to Wimbledon (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not in the instance of freedom of panorama. Your photo would be a derivative work of the bracket, and the bracket was published in the UK. GMG^talk 19:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The FOP in the UK is different from the the one in the US in that the former does allow publicly displayed 3D artwork to be photographed without worrying about infringing on the copyright of the artist who created the work. I’m not sure whether that makes a difference here. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Admittedly, I presume that this would be a two dimensional work. But I also don't sport. GMG^talk 20:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant to go back and tweak my post. Upon further reading on the Commons section about the UK’s FOP, it appears to even some publicly displayed 2D artwork is even OK to photograph. There does seem to be a different application towards 2D graphic art, but again on not sure if any of this matters here. What’s interesting (at least to me) is that even though the UK’s TOO is more restrictive than the US’s, it’s FOP is more liberal. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@I went to Wimbledon: You are correct that the law that applies is the law of the country of publication, the country where the image is used. However, in addition to the applicable law, Wikimedia Commons has a self-imposed internal policy. And according to one restrictive interpretation of that self-imposed policy, to be hosted on Commons, an image should be freely usable also under the laws of each country from which originates an object visible on the image. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

commissioned photos uploaded by company representative

Are product photos uploaded by a representative of the company that commissioned the photos considered to have been uploaded by the copyright holder? --valereee (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

So long as that individual is empowered to make legal decisions on behalf of the company, and so long as there is a contract in place transferring copyright to the company from the photographer. Whether they understand what that means or not is a different question all together. GMG^talk 15:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If the company has already lawfully licensed the photo suitably then all the uploader has to do is assert this truthfully. Discussions tend to be about whether we have good reason to believe the licence claim. We often say the uploader needs to be granting the licence but this does not necessarily need to be the case. Thincat (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, both! --valereee (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure of the status of historic railway timetables

Specifically this one published by the Montreux Oberland Bernois Railway for the Clarens–Chailly–Blonay Railway in 1911. https://www.flickr.com/photos/41347876@N00/2466212706/in/album-72157604887155321/ Would you have to identify the author and see when they died? Talltim (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Frederica von Stade Sings Brubeck Across Your Dreams

If I've understood Wikipedia's protocols correctly, it's orthodox for the official cover of an album to be allowed on the album's wikipage, and yet the cover that I added to this article has been deleted twice. I must confess to being bewildered.Niggle1892 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The user who removed the image from the article explained it in their edit comments: the file description page does not include a NFU rationale for the article "Frederica von Stade Sings Brubeck: Across Your Dreams", where you were trying to include the image. You included a (disputable) NFU rationale for the article "Frederica von Stade", where the file is not used. -- Asclepias (talk)

Can I upload a photo I took of a statue of a dead person?

The individual who is the subject of the statue died about 15 years ago, so it would be difficult to obtain a free image. There is already a wiki page on the individual, but it does not have any pictures. I was wondering if I could upload the photo of the statue for the limited purpose of the individual's bio-page. I assume the sculptor holds copyright / moral rights to the statue itself, so the image would be non-free. Is this doable?Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally yes, this would be allowed as non-free. Do check Commons:Freedom of panorama for the country you are in, sometimes this type of photograph could be free. --Masem (t) 21:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not be so secretive about the statue, its location and its sculptor. That might make a difference to evaluate if Commons or Wikipedia would allow you to upload the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. Just going to add that it makes no difference whether the subject of the statue is living or dead to upload a photograph of the statue. Moreover, regardless of the copyright license you upload such a photo under, I don't think that it would really encyclopedially helpful to upload a photo of a statue of the person so as to use it for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of the article about the person because a statue is going to represent how the scultpure "sees" the individual, not necessarily how the individual actually appeared. If individual in question is deceased, then it may be preferable to upload a non-free photograph (per item 10 of WP:NFCI) of the person (assuming the WP:FREER is not an issue) using the non-free copyright license {{Non-free biog pic}} and the non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale biog}} instead.

As for the photo of the statue, it might be possible to upload it under a non-free copyright license like {{Non-free 3D art}} using the non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale}} for use in the body of the article if there is some sourced commentary about the statue itself somewhere in the article. Whether the photo can be uploaded under a free license will largely depend on the degree of freedom of panorama allowed under the copyright law of where the statue is installed as Masem advised above. Different countries have different practices when it comes to the copyright status of pubically displayed 3D works of art, so it would be easier to help you if you can provide more information per Asclepias. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:USPS Pluto Stamp - October 1991.jpg in the New Horizons article

The non-free image of a 1991 US postage stamp is accompanied by a statement claiming that the stamp provided a reason for carrying out the New Horizons mission. This statement does not appear to have any references. In the "Mission profile" section of the article, there is a statement about an instance of the stamp being included among some other items onboard the spacecraft, and that statement does have two references.

If the postage stamp was a significant factor in the decision to carry out the New Horizons mission, then it might be more likely that an image of the stamp would be justifiable in the article as non-free content. In such a case, it could be useful to for the article text about the stamp's role to have proper references. (Though I am not sure, if an article makes a point such as "This postage stamp was a significant reason for carrying out this space mission" and a non-free image is used to help article readers understand that point, then references for the point that the article text is making may be important for justifying the inclusion of the non-free image.) To be sure, there is the question as to whether the image of the stamp could be replaced by a textual description of the stamp (particularly its reference to Pluto and the "Not Yet Explored" message.)

Assuming that the inclusion of the stamp image in the article is justified, there is the question of the image's non-free use rationale. In particular, the "Respect for commercial opportunities" section seems to state that the stamp's commercial market will not be affected by the inclusion of the image in the article because the image itself is not usable as a postage stamp. It might be better to say (or to say in addition) that the article mentions how the stamp was a significant factor in the decision to carry out the New Horizons mission and that the stamp image is included in the article to help readers understand that statement. In addition, it would be useful to state that the usage of the stamp image in that context is different from its original market roles such as decoration, marketing the actual stamp, or illustrating the stamp's subject. --Elegie (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been dealing with stamp copyright here and on the commons, for years. This clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no commentary about the stamp itself justifying reason for including the image and the reader's understanding of the topic is not detrimental to their understanding that could be made in prose but is not even mentioned. There are no sources for the justification within the rationale and I personally doubt there are any such sources. However, if the image is a NASA image in the public domain, then maybe the stamp could be considered too simple to be copyrighted. Where did the Pluto image come from? None of the freely licensed commons images look even close to the one on the stamp. ww2censor (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

If it is not free, the inclusion of this image is not really justified in the article New Horizons. There is no significant commentary about this artwork or about its author. Addition of such commentary in this article would likely be off topic. The inclusion of this image would be more justified in the article Ron Miller (artist and author), as an example of his works as a designer of stamps. As a bonus, three references are already there about a connection with the New Horizons mission. Where the connection is mentioned in the New Horizons article, you can place a link to the article about Ron Miller. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Asclepias, of the 3 sources in the Ron Miller (artist and author) article, one is dead and neither of the other two mention the stamp being the inspiration for the mission, so they are of no use for this use. This stamp is hardly representative of his work, being a planet image with some very simple text. I'm sure there must be better examples of the work he has done as mentioned in the article. The stamp does not even appear in an image search for "Ron Miller space art" in pages of examples. But, I'm sorry, I digress from the main point of this posting. ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)