Login
Login

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#File:Bestiarii (EUR Museum).jpg

{{Short description|Centralized discussion place in English Wikipedia}}

{{/Header}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(14d)

| archive = Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthname)s

| minthreadsleft = 0

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

}}

Santi Romano

I'd like to add to Santi Romano (currently under GAN review) [https://massimedalpassato.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/unnamed-900x.jpg this image] by Istituto Luce showing Santi Romano together with Benito Mussolini. I don't have any specific information about the photo, except that it was taken sometime between 1928 and 1943. Is this covered by copyright? Can it be used under our rules? Thank you for your help, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Actually [https://patrimonio.archivioluce.com/luce-web/detail/IL0000035649/12/romano-santi-legge-discorso-alla-presenza-benito-mussolini-e-michele-bianchi.html?indexPhoto=0 this image] would be even better. It was taken in Rome on the 20 December 1928. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Gitz6666}} If the photo was taken in 1928 and was first published in Italy, then :c:Commons:Italy is relevant to determining its copyright status. So, you might want to ask about this at :c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright because Commons is ideally where you should upload the photo if it already has entered into the public domain. For reference, US copyright law probably only would matter if (1) the photo was subsequently published in the US within in 30 days of its first publication, or (2) the photo was still under copyright protection per Italian copyright law as of January 1, 1996 (Italy's URAA restoration date). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, I have asked for information [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#1928_photo_by_Istituto_Nazionale_Luce here], as you suggested. I've also emailed Istituto Luce to ask if they have a copy of the image without their logo on it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Could someone please answer this question? I've included the photo in Santi Romano, but the GAN reviewer had some COPYVIO concerns about the {{tq|prominence of the logos}}. As you can see, the phrase "Istituto Luce" is superimposed all over the picture, and there's their logo in the bottom right-hand corner. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Gitz6666}}You've already received an answer to your question about this at :c:COM:VPC, right? What other kind of answer were you hoping to get here?{{pb}} For reference, Commons is only really concerned with copyright status and :c:COM:SCOPE when it comes to hosting content; (English) Wikipedia is also concerned with the copyright status of the images used in its article, but it's also concerned with their encyclopedic relevance. So, an image being OK to upload to Commons (or Wikipedia) from a copyright standpoint doesn't automatically mean there's a consensus to use it. Like text content, disagreements over whether to use an image in an Wikipedia article often need to be resolved through article talk page discussion, particularly when those disagreements aren't really related to a community-wide policy like :WP:COPY or :WP:NFCC. So, if someone doesn't want to use the image for encyclopedic reasons in a particular article, whoever does want to use the image most likely will need to establish a consensus in favor of doing so.{{pb}}The "logo" seen in the photo is really a :watermark and watermarks can be cropped out (i.e. removed) of Commons files in certain cases as explained in :c:Help:Removing watermarks. The reasons for addding a watermark can vary. In some cases, a company might being selling digitalized versions of old photos which are no longer under copyright protection, and it simply marks these versions to indicate its the source of the version. The company may require those wanting to use its version to enter into an user agreement in which they agree to not remove the watermark, but this is between the company and its users; i.e., it has nothing to with Commons and the photo's copyright status. In other cases, the company might think is now owns the copyright of the original photo or created a new copyright for its version, but this is referred to as copyfraud regardless of whether the company sees it that way. FWIW, US Courts have typically ruled since Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. that creating a digital version of an old PD photo and adding a watermark to it, doesn't either restore its original copyright or establish a new copyright. UK courts seem to follow something similar (e.g. :National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute), but whether Italy does might be another thing to ask about at :c:COM:VPC. Yet another thing to ask about at Commons VPC could be the copyright status of the logo itself. If the photo was taken in 1928, and the logo seen on the photo was added at that time, then there's a good chance the logo itself could've also already entered into the public domain per :c:COM:Italy by now. Even if it hasn't, you should be able to upload a cropped version of the photo minus the logo as long as the photo itself is public domain; you can then connect the files together using templates like :c:Template:Image extracted and :c:Template:Extracted from. Such a thing should be OK to do from a copyright standpoint, but (once again) being OK for Commons doesn't guarantee the photo will ultimately be used where and how you want to use it on Wikipedia.{{pb}}Finally, there are actually a number of Instituto Luce photos uploaded to Commons found in :c:Category:Istituto Luce. Some of them (e.g. :File:Casa mutilato.JPG and :File:Aula della Camera dei deputati.PNG) even have a similar watermark to the one found on the photo being discussed here. That doesn't mean they should've been uploaded since the uploaders could be wrongs, but my guess is that they are all PD under Italian copyright law regardless of the watermark. Maybe that information will address the concerns of those concerned about the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Thank you, @Marchjuly, for your very informative and interesting reply. No, there's no current controversy about whether we should use the image in Santi Romano, there's no need to reach a consensus because the image hasn't been challenged yet; I just wanted to be sure that we could, in principle, use the image here on en.wiki. The editors on Commons said it was fine with them, but there's a warning on the [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Santi_Romano,_Benito_Mussolini_and_Michele_Bianchi.jpg Commons page with the file] that says {{tq|This may not apply in countries that don't apply the rule of the shorter term to works from Italy}}, and I wasn't sure about en.wiki's policy, so I asked here. Ideally, I'd like to include an image without any watermarks: no logo in the bottom right-hand corner, no superimposed text. As I don't know how to do this, I'm now going to ask on WP:GRAPHLAB if anyone is willing to help me, and in case anyone there has copyright concerns, I'll link to this discussion and your detailed explanation: I think it could be very helpful. Many thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

What's the copyright situation for a White House edit of a NY Times article?

I'm gonna guess that [https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1913241658579440126/photo/1 this picture] coming from the government doesn't place it into the public domain as a work of the United States government, but then could someone who knows more about copyright than me (which fortunately isn't hard) please tell me if it would be permissible to use the image as an apt but nonessential illustration of the article for the deportation and detention of the man concerned? And under what license? --Kizor 03:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:It would be a derivative work of the NYTimes, making it a copyrighted image. Masem (t) 11:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Kizor Now this is interesting. Per Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia the pic is free for us to use, and perhaps it can be argued that the stuff around doesn't rise to the level of copyrightable. The NYT logo is public domain, because it's old. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Marchjuly and @Jmabel, feel like having an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::The prose by the NYTimes in the headline and caption are copyright the Times, so that is what makes it derivative. Masem (t) 12:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Of course it's derivative, but I'm not sure the text paraphernalia would make this unfit for Commons. It might. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Commons would accept this is the copyrighted elements we're de minimis. But in this case, the text element is fundamental to what has been done on the derivative image. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: I don't think the headline text from the NY Times there rises to the level of being copyrightable; we might have to blur out the caption text below the photo, but I believe everything else there is OK on one basis or another. - Jmabel | Talk 18:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::If the caption were blurred, then it is probably free, but now the question of whether the inclusion is necessary from a NPOV view. eg: I would think most editors on WP that lean left see that type as being very problematic from the administration, and there's a bit of human nature to feel that we should include that if it were freely licensed and all that. But at the same time, if no source discussed the problems with that tweet, pushing for its inclusion could be seen as a NPOV/RGW situation. Mind you, I see a few sources that discuss this, so inclusion is less a POV issue but that should still be discussed on the appropriate talk page. (I'm assuming we're talking about the Garcia deportion case, and certainly a section on misinformation surrounding the situation should be covered) Masem (t) 18:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Come to think of it, better than blur is to cover it with a box indicating that copyrighted content has been removed, as at :File:Helix, v.1, no.6, Jun. 23, 1967 - DPLA - 961d05f5a48a886514e066f36ac49228 (page 5).jpg. - Jmabel | Talk 18:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::: BTW, unless I am very mistaken, his surname is Abrego, and Garcia is just a segundo apellido (mother's maiden name). If I am correct, we can call him "Abrego Garcia" or "Abrego", but "Garcia" is wrong. - Jmabel | Talk 18:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think the discussion on whether to use it in the article is waiting on the discussion about its copyright status. {{Yo|Masem}}, {{Yo|Jmabel}} dare I ask what kind of license would be appropriate for uploading an image where the top is in the public domain due to its age, the top middle may be copyrightable as a derivative work of the NY Times, the middle is a work of the US government, and the bottom is copyrighted content covered by a box? --Kizor 21:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The photo used in that tweet is a US Gov PD work (attributed to the staff of Van Hollen). If the caption text is blurred out, then I would still use US Gov PD as that covers the photo and the tweet itself. Masem (t) 00:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::: No license is involved: once we do the "box", it should all be public domain (insofar as the content of the "box" might be copyrightable, I would certainly hope that the person who adds it is willing to make it CC-zero).

::::::: If it were uploaded using :commons:Template:Information (which I strongly recommend), the complicated situation (I would also indicate that the Times logo is trademarked) would be described in the "permission" section of that template. Then, since everything involved would either be in the public domain or could be treated as if it is, reusers would have no obligation to explain it at all. The only reason we have to is our policy (not any law) that we explain the rationale for considering content to be public-domain. - Jmabel | Talk 21:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Rotary International Logo.svg

:File:Rotary International Logo.svg - when did the logo published? 1921? 2013? Or other years? Is it in public domain now? I am confused with its copyright licence template and its [https://www.rotary.org/en/history-how-rotary-emblem-evolved description on official website] when checking. Saimmx (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

: Looks to me like all potentially copyrightable elements are in Oscar Bjorge’s design for the Rotary emblem, as published in the January 1920 issue of The Rotarian (on the page you linked). At least under U.S. law, you can't get a new copyright for a change of color, or a slight change in the bevel of a gear. - Jmabel | Talk 21:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Can I use a CC-BY-NC 4.0 image with permission from the copyright holder?

Hello, I'm interested in including an image in my draft article but it is currently licensed under CC-BY-NC 4.0. However, I've gotten permission from the copyright holder via email albeit "for the single use of the Wikipedia article." Would this be acceptable? If not, what further steps do I need to take? Inspired Insomniac (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:That type of permission is too strict, BY-NC already is not free use, and limiting its use further is not a free license. It can be used without having to have permission as non-free following the steps at WP:NFC, but the only way to have it be used free if the creator is willing to release it under a free license per WP:CONSENT. Masem (t) 13:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Question about the WP:NFC. It list "contextual significance" as one of its requirements. Would using the image of the theorist in an article explaining their theory be sufficient grounds for "contextual significance"? I believe this may be the case since the theorist has their own article without a picture, likely due to the unavailability of free-use images. Inspired Insomniac (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::To my knowledge photographs of living people under the pretext of them not having a free image available is not acceptable per NFC, and if you're looking just to add an image of "the theorist explaining their theory" then recognize that it almost certainly could be represented with only text, therefore, unless there's a free image of the person in question (which can be used), it should be avoided. Note also non-free images cannot be used in drafts (wait until after moving your article to mainspace before adding one). Departure– (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Contradictory notices on copyright pages of a book

The book {{cite book |editor1-last=Hocker |editor1-first=Fred |title=Vasa II: Rigging and Sailing a Swedish warship of 1628 |date=2023 |publisher=Vasamuseet ; Nordic Academic Press |location=Lund |isbn=978-91-88909-11-4}} is an important source for not only the article Vasa (ship), but also for a number of topics in the history of maritime technology. It has many illustrations that are therefore of interest to any editor working on such articles.

On the copyright page it says two things that appear to me to be contradictory:

  • Immediately above the publisher's name it says:
    "Copying or other kinds of reproduction of this work requires specific permission by the publisher".
  • Underneath the publisher's name it says:
    "Unless otherwise noted, all images are the product and property of the National Maritime and Transport Museums of Sweden, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported LIcense (CC BY)"
    Following that is a list of the book's illustrators, starting with the name of the "lead illustrator" and then a number of "Contributing illustrators" and photographers. Some of the names of these illustrators/photographers I recognise as employees of the museum, and it would be unsurprising if all of them were.

In short, first the publishers say you cannot copy anything without specific permission, then it says that illustrations not marked to the contrary are under CC BY. It seems to me that this second statement, that illustrations are under CC BY, is specific permission to copy the relevant illustrations within the book. If so, this is a massive resource for Wikipedia. So, have I misunderstood?

If I am correct, all illustrations with a credit with the initials of someone in the list of illustrators/photographers (mentioned above) are free to use in Wikipedia as long as the picture is attributed to the the National Maritime and Transport Museums of Sweden. There are some illustrations with initials that do not fit anyone in that list. I tentatively presume that these are the ones without a CC BY licence.

By way of background, the museums in Sweden appear to release a large number of images with this license. See [https://digitaltmuseum.org/search?owner=S-SMM-VM] for a route into 22,911 images to do with Vasa. ThoughtIdRetired TIR 19:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Creative Commons licensed works can be incorporated into copyrighted works. The book overall is copyrighted and reproduction of the portions for which the publisher holds the copyright would be covered by the first statement. The second statement is specifically about the images from the National Maritime and Transport Museums of Sweden. If all you are using are the images, then you are able to use these as the license is compatible for use on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::And in fact, that second notice is the requirement to maintain the byline that CC-BY requires. The book is doing it right, and Whqp is right about using those museum images under a free license Masem (t) 21:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding a film poster

I created The Children of October 7 and would like to upload a film poster. Would appreciate help with copyright issues etc. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_children_of_october_7 Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Allthemilescombined1}}. Film posters are almost always OK to upload as non-free content when they're used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone articles about the films they represnt; so, you should be able to do the same for the poster of this particular film. You will first need to download the file to your computer or device, and then reupload it to Wikipedia. You can use the Wikipedia:File upload wizard for the latter. For film posters, the copyright license :Template:Non-free film poster and the non-free use rationale :Template:Non-free use rationale poster tend to work well. If neither of these are options provided by the Upload Wizard, you use a more general non-free license and non-free use rationale to upload the file, and then change to the ones more specific to film posters by editing the file's page afterwards. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks @Marchjuly. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

List of Alexandrov Ensemble soloists

There are &8 (by my count) non-free images being used in :List of Alexandrov Ensemble soloists. All of them were recently uploaded and added to the article by {{u|LouieWillardino}}. All these have a non-free use rationale for the list article, but this type of non-free use is pretty much never allowed per :WP:NFLISTS. Only six of the subjects pictured in the photos have stand-alone articles, but there are already other images being used in those articles; the remaining 62, however, most likely don't have any potentially valid non-free use if stand-alone articles about their subjects can be written and, thus, most likely are going to need to be deleted. Most of the photos do, however, appear to be fairly old and might possibly have already entered into the public domain per :c:COM:RUSSIA or some other reason. The following are the files in question.

{{cot|Files in question}}

  1. :File:Georgy Andreyevich Abramov.png
  2. :File:Nikolai Afanseyevich Abramov (Tenor).png
  3. :File:Georgy Yakovlevich Andryuschenko.png
  4. :File:Valentin Ivanovich Anisimov.png
  5. :File:Kim Ivanovich Bazarsadaev.png
  6. :File:Evgeny Mikhailovich Belyaev.png
  7. :File:Pyotr Dmitrievich Bogachev.png
  8. :File:Ivan Semyonovich Bukreev.png
  9. :File:Vladimir Abramovich Bunchikov.png
  10. :File:Vladimir Chernykh.png
  11. :File:Ivan Alexandrovich Didenko.png
  12. :File:Viktor Konstantinovich Dmitriev.png
  13. :File:Artur Arturovich Eisen.png
  14. :File:Vasily Semyonovich Eliseev.png
  15. :File:Vladimir Vasilievich Fydorov.png
  16. :File:Stanislav Ivanovich Frolov.png
  17. :File:Valery Gavva.png
  18. :File:Konstantin Grigorievich Gerasimov.png
  19. :File:Pyotr Gluboky.png
  20. :File:Valery Petrovich Gorlanov.png
  21. :File:Nikolay Timofeyevich Gres.png
  22. :File:Sergei Ivanov.png
  23. :File:Vladimir Nikolaevich Katerinskiy.png
  24. :File:Ivan Semyonovich Kozlovsky.png
  25. :File:Andrey Matveyevich Kusleev.png
  26. :File:Edward Maxovich Labkovsky.png
  27. :File:Konstantin Pavlovich Lisovsky.png
  28. :File:Yuseph Grigorievich Laute.png
  29. :File:Alexey Pavlovich Martynov.png
  30. :File:Viktor Ivanovich Nikitin.png
  31. :File:Vasily Kuzmich Pankov.png
  32. :File:Nikolai Sergeevich Polozkov.png
  33. :File:Leonid Viktorovich Psennichny.png
  34. :File:Vsevolod Vsevolodovich Puchkov.png
  35. :File:Razumovsky Oleg Nikolaevich.png
  36. :File:Vadim Lvovich Ruslanov.png
  37. :File:Ivan Ivanovich Savchuk.png
  38. :File:Alexey Tikhonovich Sergeev.png
  39. :File:Boris Grigorievich Shapenko.png
  40. :File:Vladimir Efimovich Shkaptsov.png
  41. :File:Alexander Sergeevich Sibirtsev.png
  42. :File:Anatoly Solovianenko.png
  43. :File:Ivan Stolyar.png
  44. :File:Anatoly Syrovatko-Zolotarev.png
  45. :File:Barseg Robertovich Tumanyan.png
  46. :File:Alexei Ivanovich Usmanov.png
  47. :File:Georgy Pavlovich Vinogradov.png
  48. :File:Igor Fedorovich Volkov.png
  49. :File:Boris Grigorievich Zhaivoronok.png
  50. :File:Rostislav Verkhulevskiy.png
  51. :File:Chetverikov.png
  52. :File:Vasily Petrovich Lyagin.png
  53. :File:Veniamin Ivanovich Bycheev.png
  54. :File:Alexander Vyacheslavovich Shilov.png
  55. :File:Lavrienty Artemyevich Yaroshenko.png
  56. :File:Nikolai Ustinov.png
  57. :File:Pyotr Afanseyevich Tverdokhlebov.png
  58. :File:Vladimir Mikhailovich Glazov.png
  59. :File:Stepanov.png
  60. :File:Kuleshov.png
  61. :File:Vladimir Zakharov.png
  62. :File:Sergei Streltsov.png
  63. :File:Vyacheslav Azovtsev.png
  64. :File:Vyacheslav Azovtsev.png
  65. :File:Alexander Stepanovich Pirogov.png
  66. :File:Ivan Sergeevich Patorzhinskiy.png
  67. :File:Georgy Mikhailovich Nelepp.png
  68. :File:Yu Lysenko.png

{{cob}}

I'm wondering whether someone whose fairly good at assessing the copyright statusog of old photos (particularly Russian and Soviet photos) could take a look at these and see whether any could possibly be converted from a non-free license to some kind of public domain license. If that could be done, their use wouldn't be subjected to :WP:NFCC, and they could likely be kept (even possibly moved to Commons). -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Using fan-art in article

Hi, I've been doing a lot of work on the article for The Scholars. I'd like to put a piece of fan-art drawn by my friend of the main character, Rosa, for the "Concept" section in the article. They're fully willing to use the art for this purpose. I'd simply like to know;

  • Would this be suited for Commons or a local upload on WP?
  • What rationale would something like this best be suited for?

If it's not applicable for an article at all, that's okay too. Thank you. Rambley (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Rambley}}. There are two things to consider here: copyright status and encyclopedic relevance. If the fan-art drawn by your friend is 100% their :c:Commons:Own work (i.e. not a :WP:Derivative work), and your friend is willing to release it under one of the copyright licenses explained in :c:Commons:Licensing, then it should be OK for your friend to upload their work to Commons as explained in :c:Commons:Fan art. However, whether your friend's fan-art ultimately ends up being used in The Scholars article is a separate question that might require you or they establishing a :WP:CONSENSUS to do so at :Talk:The Scholars (album) if another Wikipedia user questions the encyclopedic value of the fan-art to readers of the article. For more on this, see :MOS:IMAGEREL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the reply. I think the art would fall under a derivative work since while the art itself is all original and drawn entirely by my friend, the character it depicts is from the album (see the album cover on the article in question); although I could be wrong. Rambley (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Television Show Logos

Many soap operas have photos of their opening title cards, while others use a transparent version of the show’s logo. Am I allowed to replace the title card photos with the transparent logos so all the soap opera entries look more consistent?

And, can creating a replica of the logo be used and added? MarkLovesSoaps (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|MarkLovesSoaps}}. You probably should ask about this :Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television since most likely the members of that WikiProject will be better able to provide some guidance on which type of image is most appropriate for the main infobox of articles about soap operas. Wikipedia has many community-wide policies and guidelines which, in general, apply to all articles, but many WikiProjects have expanded upon these to clarify how they might apply to articles that fall within the scope of their project. Wikipedia wants us to be :WP:BOLD when editing and encourages us to make changes that improve articles, but it also asks us to be :WP:CAUTIOUS when making mass changes like the one you seem to be proposing because often there's already been a consensus established to do things a certain way. Since the post above is the first edit you've made with your account, I going to assume you're fairly new to Wikipedia, which is another good reason to probably be cautious here. Inconsistency like what you're describing above often creeps in over the years when people decide to be too bold without trying to figure out whether a change should be made.{{pb}}As for your second question, it's not clear what you mean by {{tq|creating a replica of a logo}}. Ideally, the image used in the main infobox should be something official created by the creators/producers of the soap opera, regardless or whether it's a logo or title card, for encyclopedic reasons. In addition, there could also be copyright-related concerns as well if your "replica" too closely resembles a copyright logo or title card. So, if a particular soap opera doesn't have an official logo/title card, you probably shouldn't be creating your own to use on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)