Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2019/December

File:Logo PT KAI (Persero) (New version 2016).svg

Does this need to be {{non-free logo}} or can it be converted to {{PD-logo}} or even {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}? It seems like it might be below c:COM:TOO United States, but I'm not sure about c:COM:Indonesia. Commons states that Indonesian copyright law seems to follow c:COM:Netherlands in some respects and c:COM:TOO Netherlands seems a little more restrictive that the US's. If this does need to stay non-free, it will need to be removed from Template:Indonesian railway station name sign per WP:NFCC#9, but it's use in Indonesian Railway Company should be fine. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

File:John E. Page.JPG

Not sure this needs to be non-free. The source is given as this, but this is a drawing of someone who died in 1867. If this was something published in a newspaper while this person was alive, then it would certainly be too old to be PD. Even if the artist and actual date of publication is unknown, it would still likely be {{PD-US-unpublished}}, wouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

While it's fairly obvious that a photograph must have been made during the subject's lifetime, this is not the case with drawings. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Finnusertop. I'm assuming (perhaps mistakenly) that the drawing was used in a newspaper back from that error, but I haven't be able to actually find it in any of the newspaper extracts posted on the source website. So, I guess the best thing then is to keep it as non-free for the time being. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

File:GHVIP logo.png

This seems to basically be a text logo with some coloring affects added. Does it need to be non-free or can it be converted to {{PD-logo}}? I can't find anything in c:COM:SPAIN about Spain's TOO, but this does seem to be below c:COM:TOO United States and could, therefore, possibly be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} even if still protected in Spain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Funko.svg

File has conflicting licenses and, therefore, has been tagged with {{wrong-license}}. Country of origin is the US and it seem below c:COM:TOO United States; the only concern is whether the crown imagery might just be enough for it to be eligible for copyright protection. Any suggestions on what to do here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say non-free, because of the crown. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say free as it's typeface plus simple geometric shapes. The crown, to me, isn't nearly enough. Compare to New_Orleans_Saints_logo.svg or even Amazon_logo.svg. An arrow, a fleur-de-lis and a crown are all too simple to be copyrighted. Also, apologies for my original error in including the conflicting licenses. ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Personality rights of photos taken within Japan.

I'm going to add a link to c:COM:AN#Combining multiple DRs into a single one even though it seems to be more of a personality rights issue than a copyright issue because it would be interesting to here what some others have to say on it. Not only does involve a fair number of files which have been nominated for deletion by their uploader, it also might impact other files uploaded under a CC license to Commons or Wikipedia of identifiable persons which were taken in Japan; perhaps, it might even impact non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The new link to the Commons mass DR is c:Commons:Deletion requests/Shogi Proffesionals. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Battle for Dream Island logo

Is this copyrighted https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/logos2/images/d/d6/744px-Bfdi_logo.svg.png/revision/latest?cb=20180713050006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talk • contribs) 02:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pomegranatecookie. It's hard to say simply from the link you've provided. Wikia types websites usually are places where random people post content; they don't tend to be the original sources of the content. Is there an official website by the creators of the show which shows the same logo? If there is, then it might be easier to figure out its copyright status. The logo does seem too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under United States copyright law per c:COM:TOO United States, but it would be better to find an official source for the logo to make sure it's the one actually used and not something that someone created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is an official source of the logo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pomegranatecookie (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

You should be able to upload this to Wikimedia Commons using c:Commons:Upload Wizard under the license c:Template:PD-textlogo. Just make sure you provide a link to where you got the file from and also the official website which shows the file being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Vice logo.svg

This is another file which might not need to be non-free given some of the examples given in c:COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Roumdé Adjia Stadium.png

I'm wondering about this file's licensing. According to the Wikipedia article Roumdé Adjia Stadium, the stadium is currently in which would make typically make using a non-free image of it no longer acceptable per WP:FREER. However, the stadium is located in Cameroon and according to c:COM FOP Cameroon, there is no freedom of panorama for architecture permanently located in a public place. Assuming that the stadium is considered to be "architecture" in this context, that would mean that Commons would be unable to accept any photographs of the stadium. However, according to {{Non-free architectural work}}, Wikipedia can accept such photos under the license {{FoP-USonly}}. If that's true in this particular case, then that would seem to mean that the file still wouldn't meet WP:FREER since someone could take a photograph of the stadium and upload it locally to Wikipedia as "FoP-USonly". Anyone have any suggestions on what to do here? Changing the license isn't really an option because this a drawing, not a photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's File:Stade Roumdé Adjia 17082019.jpg, showing it "95% complete" in August, which, according to that interpretation of FOP maybe shouldn't be on Commons... -- Begoon 07:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that Begoon. If Commons can keep that image, then the non-free one used in the article would not meet WP:NFCC#1. If Commons, however, cannot keep that file, then perhaps it could be moved here and relicensed though I never seen that done before. I seen moving images from Wikipedia to Commons quite a bit, but not the other way around. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Heh. I'd thought exactly the same. It's used on ar.wiki, de.wiki, es.wiki, fr.wiki - so we wouldn't be helping them much... Tricky one really. Maybe see what c:COM:VPC thinks, rather than starting a DR there and "stirring everyone up" for what may turn out be nothing to worry about? I'm not sure. As for not seeing it before, it does happen - I've moved a few logos etc. here that were going to be deleted there, or had been (but that, too, doesn't help the other projects using them) -- Begoon 07:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Why you were posting here, I was posting over at c:COM:VPC#File:Stade Roumdé Adjia 17082019.jpg and asking that very thing. Great minds think alike. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. You even made the point I was going to make - that it is "under construction" in the photo, rather than "architecture permanently located" (although the 95% is not going anywhere else... ). I guess we just wait for other thoughts now. The thing about other projects hosting it too is that not every project has an equivalent of NFC (and some don't even host their own local files, relying solely on Commons) - but I can never remember which without looking it up - and even if I could I wouldn't be skilled enough in most languages to do the transfer properly with the right templates etc. -- Begoon 07:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem in having an image uploaded to Commons where the stadium is deminimis to the overall picture. Alternatively, a picture taken from the pitch, focusing on the pitch where the stadium itself is incidental to the image. Such an image would be free license. I don't see the need to keep this image given that such scenarios are possible, per WP:NFCC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

boxcar2d

Is the Boxcar2d program copyrighted? I would like to upload a screenshot for an example on the article "Box2d engine", it does not state what copyright it is but the engine is open source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdcrash (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status of a 1976 photograph

Page 17 (19 of the pdf) of the April 1976 issue of Cornell alumni news includes a photograph of Robert Kaske, taken by George Simian. Is this photograph under copyright? In particular, I'm wondering if copyright was properly established, and, if not, whether that would place the photograph in the public domain. Page 4 (6 of the pdf) contains a succinct "All rights reserved" notice; the all rights reserved article suggests that this might have some legal currency, but the copyright notice article suggests the opposite. Any help clarifying this, and establishing the copyright status of the photograph, would be much appreciated. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Usernameunique: In the US pre-1978 there was a requirememnt for a copyright notice otherwise the item would be in the public domain for non-compliance with the formalities. This publication has that notice, so the copyright will extend for 95 years after publication per c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United_States though if the copyright was registered and not renewed, it would be in the public domain, I could not find anything in that regard, maybe someone else can. We have no details of the photographers, so I suppose we must rely on the publication's copyright notice, unless you can unearth those details. However, because Robert Kaske is dead since 1989 and no freely licensed image seems to exist, you will be able to use the image, as a non-free exception, in the infobox of his article, so long as you comply with all 10 non-free policy guidelines. ww2censor (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ww2censor. What would be the situation if copyright was never registered (and thus never renewed)? The photographer is then-student George Simian, now a professional photographer. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Usernameunique: in that case, if you really can identify the photographer, their work is copyright for 70 years after their death unless they are prepared to release the images under a free license. ww2censor (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Ww2censor. Why would the copyright in this case depend on the identifiability of the photographer, rather than on whether (and what) copyright formalities were followed? And why would the term be life +70 years, rather than date of copyright + n years? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Usernameunique: unless there was a contract between the photographer and the magazine, in the normal course of events, the photographer is the copyright holder of the photographs, and if you are sure of his identity, then the image is still in copyright. You could always make contact with him per the email on his website to verify the image's copyright status. He may confirm who holds the copyright and, if he does, he may release the image under a free license but would need to do so through the OTRS team. ww2censor (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Star Trek Voyager Logo.svg

Does this really need to be {{Non-free logo}}? A bit of a fancy font perhaps, but otherwise it seems to be just {{PD-logo}}, particularly since the country of origin is given as the US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That looks to be a clear case of {{PD-textlogo}}. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:55, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Hydeparkpromo.jpg

There doesn't seem to be anything copyrightable about this image other than perhaps the photo itself. The "label" is basically simple text on a white background while the CD shape as well as the shape of the case are things generally considered utilitarian and not eligible for copyright. So, I guess it depends on the copyright status of the photo itself, which in this case would seem to fail WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issues for DPP flag in opinon poll list?

The DPP flag keeps getting removed from this page: Opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Taiwan_general_election#Party_vote. My question is: is it actually a copyright violation? And if so, are all or some of the other flags in violation, which should be removed? DrIdiot (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The file is getting removed by a bot not so much because using it is a copyright violation per se, but rather because the file's use in that particular article doesn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you look at the edit summaries that the bot is leaving, you'll find a link to WP:NFC#Implementation which explains why the file is being removed. Specifically, the file doesn't have the separate, specific non-free use rationale that's required for it to be used in the article; so, the bot is removing it per WP:NFCCE. It might seem then that the thing to do then would to be simply provide the missing non-free use rationale for the file's use in that article, but things aren't that simple as explained in WP:JUSTONE. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied each time a non-free file is used in any article, and I don't think there's any way to write a valid non-free use rationale for this particular type of non-free use per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFTABLES and MOS:LOGO (regarding the use of non-free images). You could try writing such a rationale, but I'm fairly certain that such use would be challenged and a consensus to allow it would be very unlikely to be established at WP:FFD.

As for the other files being used in that table, they are all files uploaded to Commons under a different type of copyright license than the non-free one; so, their respective uses are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Whether those other files are licensed correctly is a separate question, but that's why the bot is not removing them. So, from strictly a copyright license standpoint, they can be used in the article if that's the consensus established on the article's talk page. From an purely encyclopedic standpoint, however, I personally think all of the files should be removed for the reasons given in MOS:LOGO regarding the use of free images and WP:IUP#Adding images to articles; they're so small that they provide pretty much zero encyclopedic value to the reader and the same image can be seen more clearly in the stand-alone articles about each party. Moreover, the abbreviated party names seem more than sufficient to provide the same information (they do after all Wikilink to the respective Wikipedia articles about each party) by the reader. The logos in that table really only seem to have decorative value and there's pretty much no context being provided by them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Re: Christopher Nasiłowski

Is this photograph of a portrait from a gravesite copyrighted? Rovingrobert (talk) 07:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

That photo is not from a gravesite, it is posted on findagrave.com. There is no evidence that the person who posted it has waived copyright or licensed the photo in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 08:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Can I contact the photographer for clarification? Rovingrobert (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure; on findagrave their username is aussie. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Rovingrobert: However, be very careful because while the image was uploaded by aussi they may not be the photographer or even the copyright holder. We require permission from the copyright holder. ww2censor (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't use an image from that source. Too many unknowns. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: Which websites are the most hassle-free in these cases? Rovingrobert (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

WALI/WRHA (AM) - notice

Wanted to note that I've rolled back the removal of a logo without FUR on the article currently at WRHA (AM) as the article will move to the correct title (WALI, for which the FUR is) with a page move currently at WP:RM. This should be reflected in a few days. It is worth noting the RM in nearly 5 days of being open has only one comment, from the person who made the article occupying the space, and it is in support of the proposed article relocation. Raymie (t • c) 02:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You can roll back the bot all you want, but it will keep removing the file again as long as you don't provide a separate, specific rationale for this other usage because that's what the bot is set up to do and because WP:NFCC#10c is still not being met. You might want to discuss this with the bot's operator JJMC89 to see if he can do something that causes the bot to skip over the file, or you could simply add the missing non-free use rationale explaining how the non-free use of the file in the other article meets relevant policy and then remove or clean up two rationales on the file's page as needed once the page move has gone through. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I just went and added a second NFUR for the time being. Raymie (t • c) 05:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Proper source question

I am wondering if I have now properly sourced this file that I uploaded, which is clearly in the public domain. File:William_Rice_II.jpg Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrwv2 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

That looks OK. It is suitable to go to commons. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Metro2Radio logo.png

Former logo of UK based radio station whose non-free use pretty much fails WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and also is most likely not {{PD-logo}} per c:COM:TOO United Kingdom; however, it seems that this is a good candidate for {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} based upon c:COM:TOO United States. The file was tagged for speedy deletion, but the tag kept getting removed the uploader. If this can be converted to PD, even for only local use on English Wikipedia, then it will no longer be subject to WP:NFCC. This is basically two text logos with "Metro2Radio" superimposed upon "YourRadio". Separately they are both clearly, at least in my opinion, PD-logo, but the combination of the two might be considered creative enough to be eligible for copyright protection (particularly in the UK). Any opinions on this? Pinging JJMC89 and Davey2010 since they are the two editors who are involved in this dispute, but other input would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

How to document licensing for WP:FREER images

Please refer to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 December 20#File:Thermopylae by Dimitri Hadzi.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 December 20#File:Transparent Horizon by Louise Nevelson.jpg. @Another Believer: and I both do not know how to properly document these images as being freely licensed images for a copyrighted sculpture in compliance with non-free use. WP:FREER provides no details on how to document the licensing, and I am unable to find any poking around and doing searches. How do we do this? Perhaps the steps need to be outlined in WP:FREER. -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

If the photographer is licensing their photo under a free license, then there should two license templates, one to mark the 3D work of art as copyrighted, and and second to make the photograph as free. this advice is buried in places but found on one of the lists of copyright tags, "Photographic reproductions of 3-d objects attract their own copyright, therefore the appropriate image licensing tag should be used in addition." I feel we need a more specific template though in these cases... --Masem (t) 22:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

At least in the US, photos of 3D works (even publicly displayed works) are considered eligible for their own copyright per c:COM:FOP United States, except in certain cases. So, any photos of such works are derivatives and means that two licenses are actually needed: one for the photo and one for the 3D work. The non-free license {{Non-free 3D art}} can be used for the work and then an acceptable CC license of the uploader's/copyright holder's choosing can be used for the photo. One thing to be careful about though is that any files licensed like this are considered non-free content and still need to meet all ten WP:NFCCP for each of their uses. Another thing to watch for is whether the photo is non-free since that would make this two non-free licenses (one for the 3D work and one for the photo) which might run into problems with WP:FREER. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Picture taken in 1920 (expired copyright) but found published in 1926. Fair use?

File:Louis_Upton_infront_of_his_retrofitted_REO_Speedwagon.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricAhlqvistScott (talk • contribs) 22:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The page claimed that it was public domain, that the author was John Upton and copyright permission to PD granted by John Upton. Given the 99 year gap here It seems unlikely that the photographer has just released copyright. So written evidence will need to be provided. If the heir of the intellectual property of the photographer provides permission then WP:OTRS can be used. If it was first published in 1926, then you have to look where, and whether copyright was claimed or renewed. I am assuming this is USA. It may be fair use if a free image cannot be obtained. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, looking into this. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

NRA logo files

I asked about File:National Rifle Association official logo.svg and File:National Rifle Association.svg at c:COM:VPC#Possible PD and it appears that based upon File:National Rifle Association of America logo.png that this general design of the en:National Rifle Association logo, etc. may predate January 1, 1924 and actually be PD. The questions then is whether the slight difference in the eagle imagery and the colorization of the non-free files are enough to justify them being licensed as non-free or whether they could be recreated per WP:FREER as freely licensed svgs. Note that the source given for one of the files is Brands of the World which might have it's own associated issues as a user-created svg file, while there is no source really given for the other non-free file (just the boilerplate text added when noting is added for a source). Any ideas on what t do with these two non-free files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "Casper ten Boom roi.tif"

The photo, File:Casper ten Boom roi.tif, was uploaded under a fair use rationale, but it appears to be too old to be trademarked. Because of this, wouldn't this picture be public domain?
- Stinkyjaden (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Stinkyjaden

Hi Stinkyjaden. Trademark and copyright are completely different subjects, but perhaps you just mixed the two up by mistake. Whether the photo itself is still copyrighted depends upon a couple of different things as explained in c:Commons:Hirtle. This photo looks like a crop of this photo which is stated as being taken in October 1884 by the source website. So, from a purely age standpoint, this photo seems to be old enough to be within the public domain. However, the date a photo is first published (as explained in Wikipedia:Published and c:Commons:Publication) and the identity of the person who took the photo (particularly when they might've died) are often things that also need to be considered in addition to the date a photo is taken. Are you aware of any websites, etc. which provide more detailed information about this photo. If the 1884 date can be verified to be correct beyond any reasonable doubt, then it's possible that even as an anonymously created unpublished work that this photo might be eligible to be licensed as {{PD-US-unpublished}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. I will email the Corrie Ten Boom House site regarding the date the photo was taken.

- Stinkyjaden (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Stinkyjaden [This reply was originally posted at User talk:Marchjuly#Re: Re: Regarding "Casper ten Boom roi.tif", but I've moved it here to keep everything in one place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)]

Hi Stinkyjaden. I've moved the above comment you left on my user talk page to this page for reference. It best to try and keep everything related to a discussion you start on one page on that particular page because it makes it easier for others to follow what's been discussed so far and also participate in the discussion. As for emailing the website about the date of the image, please note that {{PD-US-unpublished}} does specifically state the prerequisite that the image in question was never published prior to January 1, 2003; so, this may be something which needs to be established. If, for example, the image did appear in some book, etc. prior to that 2003 date, it may not be eligible to be licensed as PD under that particular license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

TV station logos

Both the NBC peacock and the CBS eye seems to be logs that are not eligible for copyright protection per c:Category:NBC logos and c:Category:CBS logos so I'm wondering if File:Kgmb 2009.png and File:Khnl 2009.png need to be licensed as non-free logos. There's a color/gradient change in the KGMB logo's eye, but I don't think that's something which is generally considered to copyrightable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Borley3.jpg

Is this file: File:Borley3.jpg, really in public domain? The website where it is obtained, [1] (trueghosttales.com) states that their images are considered to be "in public domain unless a copyright notice is given." JWilz12345 (talk) 06:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Cancelling this discussion since I relocated it at Wikipedia:FFD.JWilz12345 (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

PartridgeMural.jpg

Hello, I've been gone a while, and I'm not sure how to properly tag this image. It is a photo of a mural taken from the artist's website. I contacted the artist himself via telephone for permission, and he told me that he gives full permission for us to use it. If someone could please help me with the correct tag. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Adolphus79. Verbal permissions are pretty much possible to verify for Wikipedia's purposes, so it's better for the artist to explicitly email their WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia OTRS or otherwise add a free license for their work to their website as explained in c:COM:OTRS. One thing about murals is there are two copyrights often involved as explained in c:COM:CB#Murals: the one for the mural itself and the one for the photograph of the mural. So, if the copyright holders of each aren't the same person, then the permission of each copyright holder is going to be needed for the file to be kept, particularly in the United States because there's no freedom of panorama for 2D works of art (even publicly displayed ones) per c:COM:FOP United States. Since this is really a straight-on photo of the mural and because it also shows more of the location site than just the mural itself, c:COM:DM might be able to be argued for this, meaning that only a license for the photo itself is needed; even in that cases though, if you didn't take the photo yourself, the permission of the person who did would still be needed.

In some cases, a photo of a copyrighted work of art like a statue or a mural might be OK to upload as WP:NFC#non-free content for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the work itself it or used to support sourced critical commentary about it in another article (e.g. a particular artistic style, an representative example of an artist's work) which are not problems per WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS; I don't, however, there's really any such justification for the non-free use of this file given the way that it's currently being used in Reuben Partridge, and even then permission would still be needed from the person who took the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So, it sounds like I'm going to have to drive up there and take a photo of the mural myself? - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

That's one option I guess or someone else can do the same, but whoever does will still need to take the copyright status of the mural itself into account. One thing about Wikipedia files released under a free license is that you can't really say "permission available upon request" or "contact ABC for permission" because the point of most of the free licenses accepted by Wikipedia is that the copyright holder is basically agreeing to release a free version of their work available for use by anyone anywhere in the world by anyone at anytime for any use (including commercial and derivative use) without those wanting to use having to contact the copyright holder each time they want to do so; in other words, they are granting blanket permission in advance to anyone who wants to use their work under the terms of the license the file has been released under. Moreover, once they do this, they cannot really take it back at a later date if they change their mind. This is why verification by OTRS is often required of copyright holders because it shows that the copyright holder is willingly and knowingly agreeing to the terms of the license used for the file. If the artist who created this mural is the same person who took the photo you uploaded, then they can indicate their acceptance of the terms of the license you've chosen by simply adding one of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts (see here) or a statement to that effect to their website or to the caption of the photo. If they do that, then that would make emailing OTRS unnecessary. They do, however, need to be the copyright holder of both the mural and the photo though for that to be OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the person that painted the mural is the same person that took the photo. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

All that person needs to do then is either (1) email their WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia OTRS or (2) post something on their website about the photo and their work stating that they agree to release both under a free license. This doesn't mean they're relinquishing or transferring their copyright over their work to Wikipedia or anyone else; only just that they are making this particular photographic reproduction of their work freely available to others others under a license that Wikipedia accepts. Anyone wanting to download and re-use the photo would still be expected to comply with the terms of the license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)