Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#First Upload; Need a Little Help

I'm concerned with links to WorldRadioHistory.com and AmericanRadioHistory.com being used in references. The website hosts full-fidelity scans of a couple of dozen magazines and yearbooks from the broadcasting industry, including Billboard Magazine. Because of the high fidelity of the images and breadth of the images, and because of no claims to the contrary, I think these files are copvio.

Wikipedia:Copyright violations says that {{tq|Copyright-infringing material should also not be linked to}}.

I first brought this issue up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard almost two years ago. After that, I removed lots of of links to the site. I got busy with other things, but made a dent in it.

A couple days ago, I came across an article with a few dozen such links. I dug into it a bit, and it seems like the problem is quite large. Looks like there's about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=59000&target=%2A.worldradiohistory.com there are about 60,0000 such links] to worldradiohistory.com. (Seems there are more; maybe 60,000 is the limit of the scrolling on the Special Links results. If I remove more, more appear ending at 60,000 always.) There are more than 23,000 links to americanradiohistory.com

I brought the issue up at Wikipedia:Teahouse, since I wasn't sure how to address it or where to discuss it. Someone there suggested I request a bot to help clean up. A bot certainly could help clean up, but it wouldn't prevent new links from being added.

When I opened a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests, it was suggested that we look into the site because {{u|GreenC}} believes it might be legitimate. I pretty strongly don't believe it is: the publishers involved have vehemently protected their IP in the past. There are some older magazines which are there, but not many that establish before the 1963 (er, 1968? when is it?) perpetual copyright date. I don't see anything on the site that establishes authority as a clearing house for republishing all this information from so many diverse sources, and certainly not in such high-fidelity representations.

So now I'm here, at their suggestion: how can these links to copyvio material be best addressed? -- mikeblas (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:The site claims to be operating as an archive under the provisions of [https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#108 s108] of the (US) Copyright Act 1976. That it is still standing after many years and the big publishers haven't taken action to have copyrighted material removed to tend to lend some credence that it is covered by s108 and that the materials hosted their are not copyright violations. In this it's similar to the Internet Archive and it's hosting of material which is still copyrighted. Nthep (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:If we are using these as references (the scanned works) it would be far better to change the ref to be to the original publication and not include those PDF links. We would turn our back if an editor used those links to source material but used the original source as reference, there's very little we could do to say that's an issue. But when we link to those pages even under claims of fair use, that can be a problem. Masem (t) 21:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's what I hvae been doing, and I don't see a reason to not resume doing so. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:We've previously removed scans of USA Today articles that were re-published by a couple websites (tvaholics.blogspot.com and anythingkiss.com). See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television/Archive_31#tvaholics_blog_as_Reliable_source? the conversation over at the Television project].

:There's also WP:OWNWORDS. While it says that {{tq|as long as the website has licensed the work or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use}}, I sill am not convinced that these cites have established fair use, and certainly have not shown that it has licensed the works outright. This policy is far more explicit in this wording: {{tq|If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it.}}, and I think we certainly have reason to think these sources are violating copyright by reproducing material which they don't license or otherwise have permission to re-publish.

:Further, since both people who objected to removing these links in this conversation have decided to no longer engage, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't resume removing the links as at least two policies indicate the links aren't acceptable. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::You came here to see if there was consensus to remove the links to WRH. Two people, me and Neutralhomer, have both said that we don't think removing the links is justified. One person has said, yes remove the links. That doesn't look like a consensus to me. As for no longer engaging, I'll engage when I think there is something to reply to, but this discussion is at the stage where I'm just how repeating the same position every time which is pointless. Consensus isn't who shouts longest or loudest wins. Nthep (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No, I came here to see how these links to copyvio could be best addressed. Removed manually, removed with a bot, blacklisted, or some combination of those.

:::Consensus about removing these links already exists in Wikipedia policy. -- 21:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC) mikeblas (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::No, policy says don't link to copyright violating material. What there isn't here is consensus that WRH is violating copyright. Nthep (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It's obvious that it is. I've explained why it objectively isn't -- it doesn't adhere to the code sections you yourself have cited. In matters of fact, I don't think there's any need for concensus. Even if it isn't, WP:COPYLINK says {{tq| if you know or reasonably suspect}} so all that's necessary is a "reasonable suspicion". -- mikeblas (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Just going to have to disagree with you that a copyvio by WRH is a fact. You're obviously not going to be convinced by anything I say any more that I'm going to be convinced by you. Nthep (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} {{replyto|Mikeblas|Nthep|Marchjuly}} This "yeah it is" "no it isn't" back and forth isn't helping any of us get to a consensus. This needs to be moved to another noticeboard (perferably ANI) where a complete community consensus can be achieved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:In the five or six times this issue has been raised, someone has always said that it should've been done in a different forum. Is there a such thing as reverse-forum shopping?

:Who is responsible for moving it, this time? Below, in your comment a few days ago, you excluded me from choosing a forum. -- mikeblas (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:This page has 2,500 watchers, presumably watching it because they have or have had some interest in the subject. That should be enough for others to express their opinions and for a consensus to be established. ANI isn't the centre of the Wikiverse where everything needs to be decided. If mikeblas and I had got into an edit war and were actually removing and readding the links then ANI would be the place. But on this point I do agree with mikeblas and see no reason to start this over again somewhere else. If someone wants to publicise the existence of this discussion elsewhere then please do so. Nthep (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Do we have any proof that the material on WorldRadioHistory.com is still under copyright? That the respective companies haven't given the site permission to use said works on their site? Do the rules of Wikipedia, in this case COPYVIO, carry over to other sites? I believe that Mikeblas is trying to make the rules of Wikipedia do something they can't....influence what other sites do. I also believe that there is a LOT of maybes in his various threads, but nothing that affects Wikipedia (the community) and Wikipedia articles (which use the linked sources). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have no influence over the external sites. What I can do, though, is follow the WP:COPYVIO policy and remove the links from Wikipedia. My actions exert no pressure or present no obligation to any external site. Maybe you should clarify your claim.

::These two sites post high-fidelity scans of complete references, many published after 1963 and have perpetual copyright. I can't find any explicit claim the site makes to have the right to republish and redistribute the work. (And that includes any specific 17 U.S. Code § 108 claim asserted above. Maybe they're there, and I've just not found it. Because of accessibility challenges, the site is all but unusable for me.)

::I think it's completely reasonable to conclude that these websites don't have explicit permission from all the copyright holders of Billboard (and several of its satellite publications), Cashbox, Communicator, DownBeat, Journal of Broadcasting, Mediaweek, Media Decisions, Media Buying, Sponsor, TelevisionWeek, Broadcasting, Radio & Records, Television, US Radio, Radio, Radio Daily, Radio Ink, TelevisionWeek, Music Business, SAG/AFTRA, Electronic Musician, Pollstar, Broadcasting & Cable, The Broadcasting Yearbook, The Telecasting Yearbook, .... well, that the sites don't have explicit permission to republish high-fidelity digital copies of all these works.

::Instead, I think the WP:BURDEN is on the people who place the citations that the material is acceptable. This is important becasue Wikipeida has legal exposure when linking to copyvio material, and care must be taken so that the Wiki projects aren't jeopardized. See WP:COPYOTHERS, which says {{tq|Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia.}}

::Further, see WP:COPYLINK which says {{tq|However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]); cf. GS Media v Sanoma for a landmark case in the European Union. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. }}

::{{u|Neutralhomer}} has repeatedly suggested that we vote on these policies.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mikeblas&diff=prev&oldid=1284514872][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMikeblas&diff=1284516728&oldid=1284516242] I do not think we vote on policies.

::Neutralhomer has also made comments elsewhere [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeepfriedokra&diff=1284515862&oldid=1284464183] that I have {{tq|removed multiple sources from many pages}} and this simply isn't the case. I have removed the url= parameters from referencing templates, since they link to material that's apparently copyvio. I've also removed the url-related parameters (like access-date= or archive-url=) because they're superfluous when the url= parameter doesn't exist. The references themselves (for example, to a specific issue of some magazine, containing some article, and a date) remain. I've removed only the offending URLs and the related parameters.

::I think my actions are within and contributory to the WP:COPYVIO, WP:COPYOTHERS, and WP:COPYLINK policies. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The BURDEN is on you to prove that these "high-fidelity digital copies" are, in fact, a violation of copyright. You seem to be pushing our rules (ie: the rules of Wikipedia) unto another website where we have zero influence, then claiming that what they post is COPYVIO, with no backing evidence. In short, you are unilateraly removing sources because you think they are COPYVIO, not the community. I recommend that you reverse course and bring the community at large into this and bring it to a !vote. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I have removed no sources or references.

:::::You've repeatedly made this accusation[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeepfriedokra&diff=1284515862&oldid=1284464183][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeepfriedokra&diff=1284631976&oldid=1284588320][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mikeblas&diff=next&oldid=1284630306] and I have repeatedly refuted it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADeepfriedokra&diff=1284582092&oldid=1284544915][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&diff=prev&oldid=1284585497][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mikeblas&diff=next&oldid=1284514872]

:::::Repeatedly mischaracterizing my actions is not WP:CIVIL and does not assume good faith. And certainty doesn't help your position.

:::::Please stop. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not going to list every instance, but I will [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WINC_(AM)&diff=prev&oldid=1284292798 link to this one] and your edit summary "remove links to copyvio used in references". You have given zero evidence that the content is in violation of COPYVIO, only discussions (which have died out) that you yourself have started. My "position" is and remains, if you want to remove these links per COPYVIO, you need community consensus. To get community consensus, you need to start a discussion and bring it to a !vote. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Given the copyright laws in place for some decades now, there is a very strong presumption that most of the stuff on those pages is in fact shamelessly violative of perpetual copyright until it reaches public domain age under U.S. law. Just because the copyright holders have not yet bothered to crack down on them, does not justify our aiding and abetting massive ongoing copyright violations. As has been pointed out for many years, there is no "right" (or obligation) to have an internet link to every reference you make. Just refer to the original print publication, and let the reader look for a copy where they will. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::So we should be removing all links to the Internet Archive (IA) where the archived material is still in copyright e.g. websites? There's no difference, there are both archives. Just because worldradiohistory (WRH) deals with paper publications does not make it any different to IA or any other online archive that WP articles link to. WRH makes it clear that it hosts materials under fair use (see the disclaimer at [https://www.worldradiohistory.com/index.htm]) for archival purposes. s108 states that such use is not a copyright infringement and therefore linking to the archive is not a breach of WP:COPYLINK. Nthep (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The disclaimer you've linked says "Any persons wishing to duplicate or otherwise make use of the images on this web site do so at their own risk". Downloading these files duplicates them and distributes them. Anyone following one of these links, from Wikipedia, ends up assuming the risk for the copyright violation that ensues.

:::::This disclaimer alone demonstrates that the site is unacceptable for linking from Wikipedia, per WP:COPYLINK. The "at your own risk" disclaimer indicates the site has not sought permission or approval from any copyright holder. Had they done so, they would be explaining that instead of distancing themselves with a blanket disclaimer.

:::::Are you able to describe the specific sections of 17 U.S. Code § 108 that limit the rights of all these copyright holders (even the Canadian ones) and enable the redistribution and publication of the material? -- mikeblas (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I've already linked to s108, I'll let you read it for yourself but my opinion is that WRH is acting within the limitations of that section and are not breaching the copyright of the publishers of the publications.

::::::That WRH places a large disclaimer on its home page to me indicates exactly what is says; WRH is using content under the fair use doctrine of s108, if anyone else copies and redistributes content then it is down to that re-user to justify their re-use, they cannot claim sanctuary from a copyvio claim under WRH's archival fair use claim and must establish their own claim under ss107 or 108.

::::::A link from WP to content on WRH is not redistribution, in exactly the same way that linking to non-free images hosted on WP is not redistribution. You reuse non-free content from WP at your own risk, as the uploaded of the non-free content to WP have, in most cases, not asked for the permission of the copyright holder. Nthep (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::17 U.S. Code § 108 doesn't appear to be relevant at all. I've asked you to explain why you claim it is.

:::::::The WP:COPYLINK policy is what we use here; we can't have people lawerying with Federal copyright law with the legal exposure to the Wiki project in the balance, so we must follow Wikipedia policy. That policy makes it very clear that {{tq|if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder.}}

:::::::And that's unquestionably the case here.

:::::::Indeed, a link from WP to content on WRH isn't redistribution. Nobody said it was. But since WRH is redistributing content without the explicit and disclosed permission of the publishers, it's likely copyvio. WRH hasn't been granted the right to redistribute and re-publish the material; if they had, they'd say that instead of saying "file a take down". And WP can't link to copyvio per WP:COPYLINK. So these articles must not link to WRH despite the outright lies in the sites "disclaimer". It's really that simple!

:::::::Removing the links doesn't diminish the articles. While it's convenient to verify claims in the article, removing the URL does not remove the citation despite the repeated claims of Neutralhomer. The citation still exsists, and the content is still verifiable. That slight convenience isn't worth it compared to the risk. -- mikeblas (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Very simply, without evidence to the contrary, I {{tpq|do not believe or reasonably suspect}} that WRH is carrying works in violation of the copyright. Instead, I reasonably suspect that WRH operates within the terms of s108 which starts {{tpq|it is not an infringement of copyright for a library or archives, or any of its employees acting within the scope of their employment, to reproduce no more than one copy}} and then lists a number of conditions which I consider WRH complies with, and is therefore not violating copyright. Hence WP:COPYLINK is not a reason for delinking as the test it requires to be passed i.e. is there a violation of copyright, is not being met in my opinion. I accept that you may apply the test differently but I'm not seeing, at the moment, evidence that WRH is violating copyright. Hosting material without the copyright holders permission, almost undoubtedly; infringing the holders copyright, no because the law says what they are doing is not an infringement.

::::::::What WRH is doing is exactly the same as we do here on EN:WP in using non-free content except our non-free policy is more based on s107 for comment and criticism rather than s108 archival use. We are hosting material without the copyright holder's permission but we are not infringing the holder's copyright because the law says what we are doing is permissible as long as it is done correctly. Our way of demonstrating that might be far more visible than WRH but that doesn't make WRH's approach any less lawful. Nthep (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{replyto|Nthep}} So, can I, without being considered engaging in an edit war, revert the changes Mikeblas made to the WINC (AM) reinstating the links to WRH? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That's up to you. As you can see Mikeblas and I have widely different views about WRH. Others may have equally divergent views about what constitutes an edit war. Nthep (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Neutralhomer, there's no rush. It might be better to let this discussion play out. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Okie Dokie, will do. :) Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC) 16:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The prima facie evidence is the site itself. It isn't owned by or controlled by any of the copyright holders of these works, so that redistribution is done without their direct consent. The site doesn't claim ownership or assert that it has explicit permission. To the contrary, the site admonishes users that they download this material "at their own risk".

:::::::::The phrase from 17 U.S. Code § 108 you quote has a lot more meat to it, and I think that's relevant and part of the reason the site is copyvio: {{tq|to reproduce no more than one copy}}. A number of users can download any number copies they'd like from the site, at any time, without restriction. The site imposes no copy count limit, so it exceeds this restriction.

:::::::::This also demonstrates how these sites are very much different than EN:WP. Here, we use small, low-fidelity copies of limited scope. The site is hosting complete, cover-to-cover, high-fidelity copies of these works. EN:WP requires that material be attached to an article specifically about the subject to establish the academic critique or discussion usages. These sites don't host any discussions or offer any critiques.

:::::::::The implication you're making is that any material could be posted to the web and called a "library" or "archive" and protected under this code. Certainly, there's a stronger barrier and more protection for IP owners.

:::::::::I'm profoundly uncomfortable with links to this site being used in Wikipedia, as I see it as abject violation of the rights of a few dozen copyright holders, over several dozen works ... and that's why I've been removing them over the years. (TherAt the end of the day, though, I think the decision requires a legal opinion because it exposes Wikipedia to legal liability. This isn't something that should be decided by consensus of people who aren't lawyers.

:::::::::How are these matters definitively settled? -- mikeblas (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::WRH is not reproducing more than one copy. It is reproducing one copy on it's own website. If other people reproduce that content that is not WRH's problem, it's the re-user's problem. To use your line of reasoning, if anyone reproduces a non-free image hosted on Wikipedia then you are saying Wikipedia is breaching copyright and is the one against whom the copyright holder could take action, which is not the case. Indeed our non-free policy makes it clear that re-users of non-free content from WP do so at their own risk, perhaps not as bluntly as WRH puts it but it's there. WRH are allowed to reproduce one copy for archival purposes. If other people reproduce that content that is not WRH's problem, it's the re-user's problem.

::::::::::Neither is the quality of the reproduction an issue, neither ss107 or 108 make any mention of quality they just specify the circumstances under which anyone can claim fair use of copyrighted material. That the WMF said ok we're going to dictate that we're only going to host low quality images on our own website is not relevant to a discussion as to whether another website is or isn't infringing copyright. Nthep (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{replyto|Nthep}} I did suggest to Mikeblas that he take this before the community for a !vote, but he did not seem receptive to the idea. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The website produces a copy every time someone requests one of those URLs from it.

:::::::::::WRH itself brings quality into play, with the objectively false claims in the "disclaimer" that you previously quoted: {{tq| images are reproduced in low or medium resolution and consist principally of unclaimed or "orphan" images where the copyright owner is deceased}}. If you don't think it's relevant, I'm not sure why you introduced it to this conversation previously.

:::::::::::Wikipedia establishes quality limits for fair use claims, see WP:NFCCP for example. But maybe those policies don't apply here.

:::::::::::You're now mentioning 17 U.S. Code § 107, about fair use. It's pretty complicated, and another reason that I think this decision should be escalated to someone with actual legal skills. How do we do that?

:::::::::::But my understanding is that four factors are involved in judging fair use, including to the character of that use. The character of the use isn't clearly ebalished here because the site openly makes the material avialable, as you yourself point out, regardless of the user's intent. (Remember, we're deciding if *the site* is copyvio itself, per WP:COPYLINK, not wikipedia's specific usage of the site.)

:::::::::::The section says {{tq|for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research}}. The closest is "scholarship", which is kind of vague. The quality of the reproduced work goes to both {{tq|the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work}}, and the high-resolution copies are almost never necessary for the allowed applications. -- mikeblas (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::No, WRH does not produce a copy every time requests one of those URLs from it. It displays to the reader the one copy the site hosts. That the reader's device may make a local (cached) copy, or the reader deliberately downloads a copy is irrelevant, WRH is hosting a single copy.

::::::::::::The quality of the images is irrelevant as 17 U.S. Code § 107 and 108 are silent about quality. If WRH wants to say they are low or medium quality and you think otherwise, that's you perogative. It doesn't invalidate their reproduction by an archive under s108 just because they don't match a description on the website.

::::::::::::Correct, Wikipedia's non-free content policy is not relevant here. How WP chooses to manage quality of non-free content hosted on WP is not a bar on links to other sites reproducing non-free contentbut with different policies about quality.

::::::::::::I've only mentioned s107 in relation to WP and its policies regarding non-free content or for making comparison between fair use and archival reproduction. WRH is an archive covered by s108. The tests of reasonableness of fair use in s107 do not apply to reproduction by archives under s108.

::::::::::::Yes, we are trying to decide if WRH is violating copyright and so far, I'm not being presented with any evidence that it is. I acknowledge that you think it is and I disagree with your opinion. Neither of our opinions are evidence.

::::::::::::Do you have the same concerns about links to material on other archives like the Internet Archive?

::::::::::::If you think this is all beyond the limits of what Wikipedia editors should be deciding then the contact details for the WMF's legal team are [https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/ here]. Nthep (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Except that you have been presented with such evidence: the websites are hosting high-fidelity representations of a variety of copyrighted works. The site isn't affiliated with the publications or publishers in question and doesn't claim to have license to distribute the material. What more is needed to gain your consideration?

:::::::::::::Your claim is that this publication is in-line with fair use, but since usage is not established by these sites, I don't see how that can possibly be true.

:::::::::::::Let me ask you: what do you think would be a violation of WP:COPYLINKS? Couldn't a website reproduce any known protected IP and simply claim it was for academic application, and therefore fair use?

:::::::::::::My understanding is that the Wikiemdia Foundation's legal team was involved in setting the policies I'm citing, and all that's left is for editors to adhere to them. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::They don't need the copyright holders permission, that's the whole purpose of the fair-use sections. I've already expressed my opinions on this specific example multiple times and I've nothing further to add. Nthep (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I think a question like "does a website hosting a document 'produce' a new copy every time the link is visited, thus violating 17 U.S. Code § 108" is very much out of scope for our policies, no matter how many hours were billed when writing them.

::::::::::::::My take on this is that if this is some pirate site operating outside of the law, it would be strange for its founder to be [https://www.insideradio.com/free/radio-archivist-david-gleason-to-be-honored-by-labf-at-nab-show-new-york/article_189340a6-6d10-11ee-88f9-e3c6b7e1ce1a.html honoured at a show by the NAB], whose board includes names like [https://www.nab.org/about/nabBoard.asp Disney, Fox, NBC, and Paramount] at a quick glance. Obviously this isn't proof they aren't violating copyright, but I think it casts a lot of doubt. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• It's widespread. It's spread widely. Yer gonna give me a nervous twitch. GMG^talk 12:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Sorry -- sounds like this is the first typo you've ever seen on the internet! It can be traumatic, but I know you can make it through. I thought of correcting it, but I've already linked to it in a few different places where the conversation was spread out. -- mikeblas (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Nthep}} Could we bring this entire thing to AN or ANI (or whatever venue is perferred) for community consensus of WRH? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't think this is an admin issue so not AN or ANI. Nthep (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{replyto|Nthep}} I wasn't sure of the correct venue for said discussion. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• :The consensus was already developed in the policies I've cited, so I don't think a vote is appropriate. If you disagree with the policy, you should work on getting the policy changed or at least clarified. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I highly disagree. Nothing you have cited says anything about other websites. You're grasping at straws. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{Cmt}} It's not clear how any of what's being discussed above is related to media copyright issues; it seems (at least to me) more like something that should've been asked about :WP:ELN or :WT:COPY than MCQ. Moreover, resolving what's being discussed here probably is going to require greater involvement from the community than is likely going to happen here. Perhaps moving the discussion to one of the :WP:VPs should be considered because it looks like things have run their course here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree with Marchjuly, that this needs community involvement and consensus. I'll leave it up to Nthep and Marchjuly to figure out the best venue, though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}*I went ahead and requested (via a post [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_eyeballs_requested_for_a_consensus to AN] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Admin_eyeballs_requested_for_a_consensus and ANI], where most admins are available) some admin eyeballs to reach a consensus. Since I have done that, I will step back from the conversation so it doesn't appear that I am attempting to influence it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Nevermind. Both posts were closed and deleted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I only see one post. Also: isn't this the third time you have said you'd no longer participate in the conversation? I'm confused because you keep reappearing, and that seems like an odd pattern. -- mikeblas (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Could I use a portion of this [https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F50d4a346-42f7-4e0e-9e0f-31c01ed39965_1600x337.png image] from [https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/04/us-citizen-jose-hermosillo-wrongly-detained-ice-patrol-governments-account-false/ this Mother Jones article] in the Detention of Jose Hermosillo? I read the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free%20content%20criteria ten criteria] for using fair use, and it seems to meet all of them. The signature is illustrative of the subject's developmental disability as it relates to him signing the statement.

Alternatively, because it is an image of a document from the US govt, is it in the public domain anyway?

Also, if I can use it (or for the future if I use a fair use image) how do I upload it? It doesn't seem proper to check the box stating that it's my own work, and I believe fair use images can't be uploaded to commons, so...how do I add a fair use image?

Thanks! i know you're a dog 09:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Shoot. Now I think I might be confusing fair use and non-free use. I would like to use the image, and I need guidance. Thanks! i know you're a dog 09:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:Okay - another update. I found a [https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1914393644766843386/photo/2 version straight from ICE]/DHS so I will use that. All that said, it would be helpful know if I could have used the photo. i know you're a dog 22:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi {{u|Iknowyoureadog}}. Most signatures are generally not considered eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law as explained in :c:Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. In addition, most standardized forms are generally considered to lack sufficient creativity under US copyright law. A simple :wikt:slavish reproduction of something ineligible for copyright protection or no longer eligble for copyright protection is too typically not considered eligible for copyright protection on its own under US copyright law as explained in :c:COM:2D copying. There's a fair chance the image you linked to above would be considered to be within the public domain regardless of whether it comes from Mother Jones or DHS/ICE; so, you might want to ask about it at :c:COM:VPC.{{pb}} As for wanting to use something as non-free content because it's "illustrative", this often is seen as :WP:DECORATIVE non-free use, which isn't really allowed. It's better for something like this to be supported by content citing reliable sources explaining how readers seeing the image signficantly improves their understanding of textual content associated with it and not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding. The same applies, in principle, to freely licensed content as well, in that it should be encyclopedically relevant to the article where it's being used; however, there are more restrictions place on contextual significance when it comes to non-free content. My personal opinion, here, the relationship between someone's intellectual capacity and their signature could run into problems per :WP:FRINGE and :WP:SYN to me. Lots of people have "bad" signatures, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are developmentally disabled; so, regardless of copyright status of this image, you're going to need provide some pretty strongly reliable secondary sourcing in support of not only this image but textual content associated with claims about the signature per other relevant Wikipedia policies to reduce the chance of any content you add about it being challenged. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. If possible I would like to use [https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%84_%D0%98%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BC.jpg this image] from Russian Wikipedia on the English language equivalent of the Russian page where it already appears: Saif al-Islam al-Masri. Having read WP:Non-free_content I believe it may also be suitable for the fair use exemption on the English version of the page. Does that seem to be correct?

And if so, do I need to upload it on English Wikipedia? Or can I somehow use it direct from its current location? Sonnyvalentino (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Sonnyvalentino}} To answer your second question first (because it's easier), non-free files are "local files" in the sense that, unlike files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, they can only be used locally on the Wikipedia to which they've ben uploaded to. So, in other words, files uploaded to Russian Wikipedia can only be used on Russian Wikipedia. In order to use this file on English Wikipedia, you will need to reupload it locally to English Wikipedia.{{pb}} Your first question is a bit harder to answer since answering depends upon one's interpretation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The first thing to understand is that non-free content and :fair use content aren't really exatly the same when it comes to English Wikipedia, and that English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been intentionally designed to be more restrictive than fair use. The additional criteria English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy places on the uploading and use of such content are listed in :WP:NFCCP, and one of these criteria (non-free content use criterion #1) has basically been applied over the years to disallow the use of non-free images of living persons, except in certain cases (see item 1 of :WP:NFC#UUI for an example of what this might be), because it's almost always considered reasonable for a free equivalent image to either be created or found. English Wikipedia articles aren't required to have images per se, and many articles (even biographies) don't have images at all. Articles about living people often go without images unless a freely licensed one can be found; so, simply wanting to upload and use a non-free image for the sake of it just because a free equivalent can't be found is rarely viewed as a sufficient justification for non-free use in and of itself. What is being done over on Russian Wikipedia doesn't really apply to English Wikipedia and vice versa; so, that too isn't really a valid reason for using this file on English Wikipedia. If, though, you feel the non-free use of this file satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, you can upload it and use it; however, there's always the possibility that someone might disagree with your assessment and challenge the file's use. If that happens you most likely are going to need to establish a consensus in favor of the file's use for it to be allowed.{{pb}} In addition to the "living person" issue, another potential problems you might have has to do with non-free content use criterion #4 since the source provided for Russian Wikipedia image seems to be a forum post, and such sources aren't typically considered good sources for non-free content per :WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion. Images found on forums are often hard to verify in terms of copyright status and accuracy, and English Wikipedia shouldn't really be using images of either questionable :provenance or accuracy. If you can find the same image or another image of al-Masari (e.g. on a major media website) which which clearly can be verified to be of him and which has more information about the image's copyright holder, then that should be sufficient for meeting crterion #4. Then, you'll just have provide a strong justification for using the image per criterion #1. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for that detailed reply, very helpful. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello -

I am wondering if I can use a screenshot from a Youtube video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akqs9nsTeD8&list=PLmeFs9B7p3Qt1rqyiRwWg5JUFCNW2y2uv&index=16] for an infobox profile photo of David Ian Hanauer under non-free guidelines/fair use?

Thanks!

Matthewvetter (talk) 01:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Matthewvetter No. It's annoying, but WP-usable pics of living people are rarely available. If you want, you can try contacting the article-subject and point him to Wikipedia:A picture of you. Some people think it's a good idea to provide us with something we can use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hi @Gråbergs Gråa Sång

::Thanks for your response. I suspected as much. I will try asking the subject if they are willing to go through the WP:Picture process. best, Matthewvetter (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

In light of the fact that a subject has been dead for 8 years, can their wikipedia entry use the photo submitted for the subject's Legacy.com obit? Subject was notable at the time of passing, and their notability has flared up again. DarkStarHarry (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Apdater ok mis servisios 187.140.162.241 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding :File:Resurrection film poster.jpg: @Wheezythewave uploaded a new version of Resurrection (2025 film)'s poster that was released with its Cannes announcement. I know the current 1,080 × 1,620 image needs to be sized down to under 0.1 MP to meet WP:IMAGERES, but do the old non-free revisions need to be deleted? How do you tag those? Iiii I I I (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I am preparing to upload an SVG of the Toronto Raptors primary icon logo. However:

• The file being uploaded is not original; it was modified in Adobe Illustrator to change the shade of red used in the logo.
• Is the Raptors logo simple geometric shapes? It is a basketball with claw marks.

Mario662629 (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

: Hi {{u|Mario662629}}. Are you asking about :File:Toronto Raptors logo.svg? The claw marks could be enough to push the file above :c:COM:TOO Canada and :c:COM:TOO US or at least make it a really close call. It's certainly trademarked as seen [https://ised-isde.canada.ca/cipo/trademark-search/1707080?lang=eng here], but I'm not sure how to check copyright records for Canadian organizations. Given that the team seems to be very proactive in protecting what it percieves to be its [https://www.sportsnet.ca/basketball/nba/raptors-court-battle-monster-energy-logo/ rights related to the logo], it might be better to treat the logo as non-free just to err on the side of caution. As for the color change, the file currently being used does seem to be sourced to an [https://www.nba.com/team/1610612761/raptors official NBA website]; moreover, the [https://www.nba.com/raptors/ team's official website] also looks to be the same shade of red. So, you probably shouldn't be changing the shade of red unless you can verify the change is needed per some kind of official source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::The modified color shade is to match the shade listed on the guideline sheet. The shade used on the guideline sheet is #ce1141, while the shade used elsewhere on the website is #bc2126. Mario662629 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Is the {{tq|guideline sheet}} you're referring to something officially provided by either the team or the NBA or is it [https://teamcolorcodes.com/disclaimer/ something unofficial] like [https://teamcolorcodes.com/toronto-raptors-color-codes/ this]? Unless there's something official provided by either the team or the NBA that specifically states the shade of red should be #cell14, I don't think you should be trying to change the color of the logo from what can be downloaded from an official team or NBA website.{{pb}} Finally, a non-vector version of the logo (e.g. png) might actually be better than a vector version if the vector version isn't officially provided by either the team or the NBA for reasons related to :WP:NFCC#3b (:WP:IMAGERES) and :WP:NFC#Multiple restrictions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::[https://cdn-assets-us.frontify.com/s3/frontify-enterprise-files-us/eyJwYXRoIjoibmJhXC9maWxlXC81UUFSdTZRektvVFNIVzNGcHBTSC5wZGYifQ:nba:n4DIyUJKoLK0A0QeWccDL2TeIs0G3AWIh8NHJJJURwI| I'm referring to the official guideline sheet.] Mario662629 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The link you've provided doesn't work for me, but that could just an issue on my end. Regardless, you probably shouldn't really be using software to modify the coloring of the logo despite what the guideline might say. You can update the file, however, with a more correct version from an official team or NBA website (if you can find one), but I wouldn't suggest trying to "fix" things on your own per se. If a logo with the incorrect shade of red is being used on official team or NBA websites, then they should be fine for Wikipedia as well. Any issues associated with the logo's coloring would've most likely have already been fixed by the either team or NBA if it really matter with respect to the team's branding. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Marchjuly}} Remove "%7C" from the URL in the address bar and it should work. Wikipedia was weird with adding this link... Mario662629 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Your link fix suggestion worked. Thank you for that. To be completely honest, though, the logo shown on that guidelines page look pretty much the same as the one currently used in the article, at least to me. So, I'm not sure a change is really needed here because any difference in the shade of red is most likely going to be pretty much non-discernable to the typical Wikipedia reader and be a negligible improvement encyclopedically. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I am concerned about adding it to the top of the article or adding a logo gallery to the "Logos and uniforms" section of the article, due to possible violations of one of the following non-free content criteria:

::::::::* Minimal usage (due to there being a logo gallery being planned or for it to be alongside the original logo at the top)

::::::::* Restrictions on location (possibly temporarily using it in a page in my user namespace that is basically another sandbox; will not stay there permanently)

::::::::The logo often does appear in YouTube thumbnails and other places, by the way, including sportslogos.net. If I get a violation alert when I upload this modified logo, it is not intentional. Also, how do I manage uploading this logo when it was modified from its original source? Mario662629 (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per non-free content use criterion #9. If you try to use non-free content on other pages (even temporarily), it will be removed as a violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, most likely by a :WP:BOT and most likely rather quickly. If you re-add the content after it has been removed, it will just be removed again. If continue to try to re-add the content, it will not only keep being removed, but you're also likely to attract attention (perhaps even from a Wikipedia administrator). For reference, users have been blocked for repeated violations of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; so, it's best to make sure you've got a valid use (or at least what you feel is a valid use) for the content before uploading it.{{pb}}Non-free logos such as this generally are OK when they're being used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the organizations they represent; however, trying to use the logos in other articles or in other ways (e.g. a in-body section of a stand-alone article about the organization in question) often becomes much harder to justify per :WP:NFC#cite_note-4, :WP:NFC#CS and :WP:JUSTONE. Simply wanting to "show" the logo is almost never considered a sufficient justification for non-free use, and sourced critical commentary specifically about the logo (or change in logo branding) often is considered the bare minimum to contextually connect the file to corresponding text about the logo or the organization's choice of branding. Non-free use isn't automatic; so, even if you think the non-free use is justified, another user could challenge it and possibly even remove the file; if that happens, the burden will fall upon you to establish a consensus in favor of the use per :WP:NFCCE.{{pb}} A simple update (e.g. color correction) of the existing file being used in the main infobox of the article can most likely just be done by going to the file's page and clicking on "Upload a new version of this file" as long as the change is minor (i.e. likely non-contentious) and the format is the same; in such a case, you would just need to update the existing non-free use rationale to reflect the information of the updated version of the logo. Significantly different versions of the logo should be uploaded as a separate file; you can then replace the old file with the new one. Please note though that some could disagree with the replacement and revert the change; if that happens, you should establish a consensus for replacing the logo, most likely on the article's talk page. If you edit war over non-free content, you're likely going to be blocked. Please also note that once you update or otherwise replace an existing non-free file, it's justification for non-free use disappears (or least changes), and the "old" file/version will be tagged for speedy deletion per :WP:F5 if a new valid non-free use for it can't be found.{{pb}}As I mentioned above, the differences in the shade or red seem fairly minor to me, and don't really necessitate an updating of the logo. You can, however, start a discussion about things if you want on the article's talk page or seek additional feedback from a WikiProject like :WP:NBA.{{pb}}Finally, what other websites might be doing isn't really relevant when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. They have their own policies and guidelines, and Wikipedia doesn't follow them. You should, in principle, stick to using non-free content as found on official sources since that's how the organization has chosen to represent itself. You shouldn't really be modifying anything at (except perhaps to make a minor correction like straightening) because you think that's how the logo should be. If you can find the logo with the shade of red you think is appropriate being used on some official team or NBA website, then use that. You really should take a logo from such a site and modify its coloring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::OK then, thanks for the info. This is what caused me to prepare uploading the logo and filling the form several times before stopping. In addition:

::::::::::* I'm worried about being blocked for creating a logo gallery on the team's Wikipedia page, especially if it takes a while for it to get noticed or if I don't get a warning before the block.

::::::::::* A lot of the teams that have logo galleries on their pages have the logos under the threshold of originality, or their first publications are a long time ago. In addition, I've not really seen copyright information for the logo, and people have used it all over the place.

::::::::::* The original file that I was preparing to upload was the modified version of the logo, not the original version. I'm not sure how to source it if the file was modified.

::::::::::* What if I add a warning to the file page to try and persuade other editors to help me add a fair-use rationale and/or put the logo in an article so that the file isn't orphaned anymore?

::::::::::* Does the article's talk page also cause a violation, or only the other namespaces (e.g. Help, Template, User, Wikipedia, etc. and their talk pages)?

::::::::::* What if I uploaded an existing logo (that someone else uploaded and was already used on the team's article) to another page?

::::::::::* Is the below message the warning you get on your talk page when you insert a sports logo in the wrong namespace? If not, what do you get? Note that this is not a real warning, it's just a sample. {{blockquote|File:Information.svg Hello! Your image was inserted successfully but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy, it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.}}

::::::::::Mario662629 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od|10}} Non-free content is, for the most part, not allowed in image galleries per :WP:NFG; so, it's best to avoid doing so. If you're worried about being blocked due to creating an image gallery, don't create it. Wikipedia's non-free content policy only applies to content licensed as non-free; it doesn't apply to freely licensed files. All files, however, are still subject to :Wikipedia:Image use policy, and this includes :WP:GALLERY.{{pb}}:WP:BLOCKs are intended to be preventative, not punitive; in other words, they're intended to prevent further disruption or inappropriate behavior and not really to punish people for something they might've done. Unless what you do is so bad that pretty much any Wikipedia administrator will see it as warranting an immediate block, you're likely to be warned before your blocked. It's OK to make mistakes, but repeating the same mistakes or inappropriate behavior over and over again despite being advised not to is generally why users end up being blocked.{{pb}}You should only upload non-free logos from official websites under control of the original copyright holder of the logo and avoid everything else unless you're fairly certain of the :provenance and accuracy of the logo. You also shouldn't upload modified versions of logos unless they were modified by the original copyright holder since user-modified logos might not be accurate or might be sort of an :WP:IMAGEOR.{{pb}}I'm not sure what you mean by adding a "warning", but you shouldn't upload any non-free files if you don't have a valid non-free use for them. It's your responsiblitly to make sure the file at least meets :WP:NFC#Implementation (i.e., has a non-free copyright license and separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use). You shouldn't upload a file missing any of these things and just expect others to come around and add them for you. Someone might just do that if they want, but you shouldn't expect others to do so.{{pb}}Non-free content can only be used (i.e., displayed) in the article namespace. If you try to use it anywhere else, it will eventually be removed. If you want to discuss a non-free file on a talk page or some noticeboard like this, you can add a link to the file as explained in :WP:COLON.{{pb}}Non-free content use criterion #7 only requires that non-free content be used in at least one article; it doesn't say it can only be used in one article. So, non-free content can be used in more than one article or more that one way in the same article, but non-free content use criterion #10c requires that a separate, specific non-free use rationale be provided for each use, and it's the responsibility of the user wanting to use the file in a particular way to provide a corresponding non-free use rationale specifically for that use; in other words, you should expect others to add a missing non-free use rationale for you or expect to cleanup any incomplete or malformed rationale you might've added. non-free content criterion #1 does, however, require us to use free alternatives (:WP:FREER) to non-free content whenever possible, and non-free content use criterion #3 requires us to keep non-free content use as minimal as possible. Since a single use of non-free content is already considered to be quite the exception to :WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files, additional uses tend to be even more exceptional and, therefore, correspondingly much harder to justify. So, using a non-free file in more that one article or in the same article more than one way isn't expressly prohibited per se; it's just really hard to justify in terms of relevant policy.{{pb}} Most user warnings (like :Template:uw-image1) are actually templates containing boilerplate text intended to cover as many possibilities as possible. If such a warning was added to your user talk page, the user who added it most likely signed their post. You can also check your user talk page's history to see which user added it. If you want clarification on why it was added, you can simply ask that user themselves. User warnings were develped to help let others know that something they did was not really in accordance with some Wikipedia policy or guideline. The original intent was good, but that intent has been somewhat lost in the shuffle as Wikipedia has grown over the years. So, many users add such warnings either too quickly or for inapproriate reasons. If someone adds a user warning to your user talk page, try to understand why. If you don't understand why, you can always ask them for clarification or ask for help at at :WP:HD or :WP:TEA. Anyone can add a user warning to another user's talk page, in principle, but it should really only be done when necessary and usually a more personalized post will get a better response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I am kinda wondering what the copyright status of the images in [https://sd.copernicus.org/articles/8/29/2009/ might be]. Some might be derivatives of Google or earlier papers, and then they would be derivative works. Others might not be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Jo-Jo Eumerus The whole thing is released under a CC-by-3.0 licence and I can't see anything that doesn't include the images in that. I don't think there would be a problem with figs 1, 3 and 4 as they are all by various members of the author team. Fig 2 is based on data from another paper [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236886277_Origin_and_significance_of_diagenetic_concretions_in_sediments_of_Laguna_Potrok_Aike_southern_Argentina] but I think the figure itself is by the authors of the paper. Fig 5 doesn't have any credit so, again, I'd assume it's all by the authors and is covered in the CC-by-3.0 licence. Nthep (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::Going to ask {{U|Nikkimaria}} too, since I plan to send Potrok Aike to FAC at some point. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 14:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If the images were previously published elsewhere then it would depend on the terms of that previous publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::So it looks like Fig1 contains no information from Corbella. 2006 Fig5 resembles 2009 Fig1 but there are some minor differences in contours and terrain (some terrain hidden in 2006 Fig5 by labels shows up in 2009 Fig1) that one isn't derived from the other. I suspect that 2006 Fig5 and 2009 Fig1 have the same background map; Google Maps satellite looks quite different though and neither source specifies the origin of the background. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)