Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2021/February

Question about public official image

Hello,

I noticed that the page for Sam McCann, a former Illinois lawmaker and gubernatorial candidate, is lacking a picture. I have found this photo, from his official Illinois State Senate biography. Is it safe to assume that it’s in the public domain (especially since it’s from a .gov site)? Or are there additional steps I should take to determine its status?

Thank you for your help. -Historical-idealist (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No. While US federal government images may be public domain, this does not pass on through to the states. Only a selected few states have a similar PD policy (I believe its California and Florida but that's off top of my head). Presume state government documents are copyrighted unless stated otherwise. --Masem (t) 04:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Historical-idealist: The 3rd state is Massachusetts. See US state copyrights. ww2censor (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Peters NIU shooting.JPG

It seems like this might be considered a screenshot/screen capture per c:COM:SCREENSHOT since it appears to be a photo of live video broadcast. If that's the case, then the original video might be copyright protected, which means there would be two copyrights that need to be taken into account per WP:Derivative work. If that's the case, then this file probably can't be kept unless both elements of the photo can be verified to have been released under an acceptable license for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I personally took this photograph with my own camera at the NIU Convocation Center (an indoor arena) during a memorial ceremony for the NIU Shooting, held on February 24, 2008. The photo was taken of a video screen in the arena since I was far back in the arena and couldn’t get a good photo of him at the podium..I had to take a picture of the feed on the video screen instead. Abog (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Abog: Thank you for the clarification and my apologies from not responding sooner. Photos such as this are often considered to be WP:Derivative works in which there are two copyirghts which need to be considered: one for whatever is being photographed and one for the photo itself. So, while you certainly can claim copyright ownership of the photo you took, you cannot neccessarily make the same claim over what you photographed. The fact it's not a photo of the actual live event, but of a video feed of the event might matter and the copyright status of the video feed might need to be clarified for Wikipedia to keep this image as licensed. Do you know whether a video of this memorial ceremony was posted anywhere online by the university? If it was, then it's possible that the university released it under a license that Wikipedia accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• Marchjuly is correct in that there are two copyrights at issue; the photographer (you, Abog) and the copyright held by the person or entity that was taking the video. Even if the video was presented in public, it does not waive the rights of the person or entity that created the video. If it were the case that such circumstances waived any rights, then people would be free to record a video of a television show and claim that the broadcast of it waived all rights to it. So, barring presentation that the copyright holder of the video has released the video under a free license, the image is encumbered with rights that make it non-free. Given the event, I doubt there is any appropriate rationale for having a non-free image of a video feed of the university president talking about the shooting (WP:NFCC, WP:NFC). I think the image needs to be deleted. A similar question arose some years ago regarding an image of Kim Jong-un. There was a public display of a KCNA broadcast that someone had taken a picture of. The image is this one. At the time, we did not have a free license image of Kim Jong-un, and someone proposed using this image in cropped form to do so. The broadcast as depicted in this image does not encumber the image with copyrights from the broadcast rights holder as the broadcast is de minimis to the entire image. Cropping it to just the broadcast, such as is the case with the image we are discussing here, does encumber the image with rights from the original broadcast. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

How to license/upload images with fair use restrictions?

I created more context and detail for the WIKI article William Sidney Mount. I want to upload images created by the subject to provide evidence for the context, but the images are owned by the museum I work for and whom I am doing the edits under. I want to upload them, but with fair use restrictions. I am not sure how to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LIMuseum1200 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi LIMuseum1200. A painting from 1828 like File:William Sidney Mount (1807-1868), Self Portrait with Flute, 1828, painting.jpg most like doesn't need to be treated as non-free content as explained in c:COM:PD-Art since it's almost certainly too old to be considered to be protected by copyright anymore as explained in WP:PD. A photo of such a painting, however, might need to be considered to be eligible for copyright if it's deemed to be a WP:Derivative work; if the photo is just a straight on shot of the painting without any frame or any other potentially copyright-eligible elements though, then it probably would be considered a slavish reproduction per c:COM:2D copying and not be eligible for its own copyright.

This next part is not related to media copyright per se, but rather image use general. While it's nice when Wikipedia articles have images in them, too many images can actually be a bad thing. Wikipedia articles are not really intended to be image galleries and ideally the images added to an article should suppoort correpsonding article content. William Sidney Mount already seems to have had quite a number of images used in it before the you added some more and in this case it seems that more might not be better. So, you might want to start a discussion about these images at Talk:William Sidney Mount to see whether have any opinion as to whether they are necessary and how to best incorporate them into the article.

Finally, you also posted the images are owned by the museum I work for and whom I am doing the edits under, but if you're trying to add content to Wikipedia about your employer. then you're going to be considered to have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and almost certainly be subject to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure; so, please make sure you read the two page and follow the guidance they give. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Images coming from illegitimate sources

Hello, I assume that for images that list their source as a link to a pirated material:

1. The link should be removed as WP:COPYVIO states Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to.
2. The image should be deleted.

I'm a little less clear on #2, so I wanted to ask here. Assuming the answer is yes, should it go to WP:FFD, or CSD as WP:F9? F9 seems to deal more with Fair Use, and one could claim fair use, but they got the image from the wrong spot.

Some background: I am coming here after starting a discussion at the blacklist (discussion here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Discussion), where I will be submitting some comic piracy sites that only host pirated images of comic book pages. I've seen these sites used as sources a little more frequently lately, and after starting the process, I found that their use has been more widespread in the File space. Several of the {{link summary}} listings here Special:PermanentLink/1004517682#Comic piracy sites go to files sources to such piracy sites (e.g. Special:LinkSearch/https://*.viewcomics.me). At the recommendation on the blacklist page, I temporarily undid the request in order to try and do some cleanup before the blacklist entry is actually incorporated. (Any help on that front is appreciated.)

I think this continues into a question of Main space revdel requirements, but I unfortunately think that goes to another forum since this is for media... (Any advice on a better, centralized discussion location is also appreciated.) -2pou (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• It would normally be WP:FFD I think. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Blackpink Rosé performing "Gone" at Blackpink "The Show".jpg

Hi! I uploaded this Instagram photo (https://www.instagram.com/p/CKvQElNjusu/?igshid=5d29qd5f2fvc - second picture) on the article Rosé (singer) under the section “2021: Solo debut” as the subheading talks about her debut performance of her solo song. I found a picture of the performance on the Instagram of the guitar player (on the right in the first picture) who has a verified Instagram account. I credited him as the author of the image as he is the original uploader on the original site. Even though it has no Creative Commons licensing, is it still appropriate to use since it is a verified account of someone who was there?

Thanks! Blinkpinkfan (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Blinkpinkfan: No not at all. For us to keep such a photo we need to have verified permission directly from the copyright holder to the OTRS team, who may not even be the guitar player. Their verified account does not mean they took the photo and are the copyright holder. Most images available online are copyright to someone and we have to know for sure the author has given their permission under a free licence. Being in possession of a photo does not confer any copyrights to that person unless they took the photo and most social media page do not provide any such assurance. ww2censor (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I upload my own avatar image?

I have some question on whether, I can upload my own avatar image that I created using Apple iOS Memoji feature?

I use a similar version on my personal Facebook profile as well, however the version I'm planning to upload to Wikipedia is without Macbook.

This is an example of Memoji with Macbook [1] and this is without [2].

Note: The example is just for illustration and I got the links from Google Images Search.

I don't plan to share my Facebook profile due to WP:REALNAME, however I would like some clarification on whether I could upload my own avatar image which would only be used in my user page inside the custom infobox. Thanks — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 12:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

It will depend on the copyright features of the app you used to create that avatar. The license may create a copyright held by the provider. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Orangemike: It's not an app but a feature that shipped with iOS 12 and newer. [3] — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 16:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The feature is located inside the Message app. — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 16:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"All text, graphics, user interfaces, visual interfaces, photographs, trademarks, logos, sounds, music, artwork and computer code (collectively, "Content"), including but not limited to the design, structure, selection, coordination, expression, "look and feel" and arrangement of such Content, contained on the Site is owned, controlled or licensed by or to Apple, and is protected by trade dress, copyright, patent and trademark laws, and various other intellectual property rights and unfair competition laws." --Orange Mike | Talk 16:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Orangemike: Thanks for taking the time to research on the topic, however I need to point out to that the link you provided is actually referring to the Apple website (apple.com) instead rather than Memoji feature. Quoted from the link, you provided, the 1st section,

Ownership of Site; Agreement to Terms of Use
These Terms and Conditions of Use (the "Terms of Use") apply to the Apple web site located at www.apple.com, and all associated sites linked to www.apple.com by Apple, its subsidiaries and affiliates, including Apple sites around the world (collectively, the "Site"). The Site is the property of Apple Inc. ("Apple") and its licensors. BY USING THE SITE, YOU AGREE TO THESE TERMS OF USE; IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT USE THE SITE.
Apple reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms of Use, at any time. It is your responsibility to check these Terms of Use periodically for changes. Your continued use of the Site following the posting of changes will mean that you accept and agree to the changes. As long as you comply with these Terms of Use, Apple grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited privilege to enter and use the Site.

— Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 17:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Request advice to re-instate image

This person, Amy Sanderson (suffragette), was a recipient of the item depicted and the image is on Holloway brooch. How can we correct the presentation of the image to re-instate it on this person's article. Thanks.

refers to edit 22:34, 6 February 2021‎ JJMC89 bot talk contribs‎ 14,171 bytes −74‎ Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation. Questions? Ask here. undo

{{this is a new user}}

Kaybeesquared (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kaybeesquared. File:Photo of Holloway brooch.jpg is licensed as non-free content which means that each use of it anywhere on Wikipedia needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The bot removed the file from Amy Sanderson (suffragette) for the reasons given here; basically, the file was lacking a non-free use rationale for the Sanderson article which meant that it failed non-free content use criterion #10c. Sometimes when this happens, all that is needed is for a non-free use rationale for the specific use to be added to the file's page; however, in this case, I don't think that would work because I don't believe a valid rationale can be written for the file's use in the Sanderson article for the reason given in item 6 of unacceptable uses of non-free images. The fact the Sanderson received the brooch is not really in and of itself a sufficient justification for showing a non-free image of the brooch in the article and simply adding a Wikilink to Holloway brooch is more that sufficient in this case. This is just my opinion though and if you disagree, then you're going to have to add a non-free use rationale explaining why to the file's page in order to stop the bot from removing the file. Providing a rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the ten non-free content use criteria that need to be met, and I don't think this use would meet non-free content use criteria #1 (WP:FREER) or #8 (WP:NFC#CS); so, there's very little chance a consensus could be established in favor of its use in the article at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for helpful explanations,

Kaybeesquared (talk) 08:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Uploading Image for a New User

I am a registered but unconfirmed user. What is the best way to upload an image for an organization I am a representative from?

SammyKnapp (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi SammyKnapp. The first thing you should do it carefully look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure for reference. If you're going to try and create or edit content about an organization you represent, then those two pages contain important information about Wikipedia that you need to understand. Please be very careful when in comes to the page about "paid-contribution disclosure" because a failure to comply with it is considered a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's meta:Terms of Use.

As for uploading the logo, perhaps you can clarify a couple of things.

1. Is the logo for a new article that you hope to create or is it for an already existing article? If it's for an existing article, please provide the name of the article.
2. Are you the copyright holder of the logo (i.e. you created it) or is someone else the copyright holder (i.e. the organization you represent own the copyright over it)?
3. Does the copyright holder wish to donate the image to Wikipedia or otherwise release a version of it available that anyone anywhere in the world can freely use at anytime for any purpose?

The answers you give to those questions will make it easier for someone to help sort things out with respect to the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly! I will read those articles, thank you.

1. The logo is for an existing article. the name of the article is Vessel Drum and Bugle Corps.
2. The organization I represent is the copyright holder; I am in position to determine how such things are used online.
3. I believe we would like to upload the image in the same manner as the existing image on that page; it looks like it was uploaded as a "non-free logo using File Upload Wizard." I believe this would mean that we are donating the image to Wikipedia, but I admit I do not fully understand the associated copyright rules and regulations.

I would also like to know where I can find image specifications; appropriate or recommended file sizes, formats, and resolutions that images should be uploaded with.

Thank you for your help!

SammyKnapp (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Anytime you upload anything online, you run the risk of it being used in ways you don't like by others; however, uploading something to Wikipedia as non-free content doesn't mean you're donating the logo to Wikipedia. Your organization will still retain all rights to the logo. Wikipedia non-free content was set up to allows certain types of copyrighted content to be uploaded and used in articles; it is sort of Wikipedia's version of the concept of fair use (only much more restrictive) since fair use is practiced in the US where Wikipedia's servers are located. Copyright holder permission isn't even required to upload a file as non-free content, but the way the file is used needs to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy. Non-free content tends to be much harder to use than freely-licensed content on Wikipedia and by Wikipedia's readers; so, Wikipedia prefers non-free content whenever possible. Copyright holders, on the other hand, might prefer to not to release their content under the types of free licenses that Wikipedia accepts (like these) because it means they are agreeing to give up some control over their content. If your organization doesn't want to give others permission to download the file from Wikipedia and reuse the logo for commercial or derivative purposes, it shouldn't upload the logo under a free license.

Vessel Drum and Bugle Corps already has two logo files being used in it: one in the main infobox and one in the body of the article. Do you want to replace one of these logos or do you want to add a third logo to the article?

If you want to do the former, then how it can be done depends on how different it is from the file currently being used. If the two files are pretty much the same with only some minor differences, then you probably can just go to File:Vessel Drum and Bugle Corps logo.jpg#File history and click on "Upload a new version of this file"; once this is done, the updated version will automatically replace the older version in the article. If the files are significantly different, then you probably should upload the new file as a separate file, and then replace the older version with the updated version manually. Either way the replaced version will eventually be deleted.

If you want to do the latter (i.e. add a third logo to the article), then that seems like it's not going work out. Uploading the new file would technically be an easy thing to do, but justifying its use is a completely different matter. To be honest, the non-free use of the File:City Sound Drum & Bugle Corps Logo.jpg doesn't seem to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy as it is; so, that logo is probably going to need to be removed. If the non-free use of two logos in the article is not really justified, then a third logo is also probably not going to be justifiable as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Normally SammyKnapp, the policy allows the use of just one non-free image in an article in order to identify the organisation, society, product, album, etc., usually in the infobox. The use of a 2nd or 3rd non-free image will normally trigger a deletion nomination because it is hard to comply with all 10 non-free policy criteria for more than one such logo. The only way to get more than one logo into an article would be for the copyright holder, (I presume that's the company but it may not be) to release them under a free license but then anyone can use them for anything including commercial use, which you may not be prepared for. ww2censor (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to replace the logo in the main infobox, not to add a new one. I believe that the changes are minor, and that uploading a new version would be acceptable. There are differences, but the version of the main logo in the infobox now was a screenshot from the old website; the background is not part of the logo. However, when I go to File:Vessel Drum and Bugle Corps logo.jpg#File history, I do not see a link that says "Upload a new version of this file." I've read that if thats the case, that the file is hosted by Wikipedia Commons, but I do not see the file located there either, although I'm sure I could be doing something wrong. As for the File:City Sound Drum & Bugle Corps Logo.jpg, that probably should come off of the page. Much of the information on the Vessel Drum and Bugle Corps page is out of date or inaccurate, and really City Sound Drum & Bugle Corps should have its own entry.

SammyKnapp (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Vessel Drum and Bugle Corps logo.jpg is a local file licensed as non-free content; that's why you can't find it on Commons. For reference, Commons doesn't accept fair use content of any type as explained here; so, if you try to upload such a file there, it's almost certain to be deleted (most likely fairly quickly). The reason you can't see the "Upload a new version of this file" might have to do with the newness of your account since only WP:AUTOCONFIRMED accounts can upload files. If you don't want to wait until your account is autoconfirmed to update the logo, you can either (1) ask for help at Wikipedia:Files for upload or (2) post a link to the file here and someone else should be able to update the file for you. As for really City Sound Drum & Bugle Corps should have its own entry that's a completely separate question that has to do with Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability (music). To be honest, on not quite convinced that Vessel Drum and Bugle Corps is notable enough for a stand-alone article to be written about it since there's nothing cited in the article that indicates it has received the type of significant coverage generally expected for a subject to have a Wikipedia article written about it; so, as it stands, there's a good chance the article survive a deletion nomination. So, instead of trying to create a new article, it might be better to focus on finding significant secondary coverage in reliable sources, which are WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT in nature to clearly establish the corps Wikipedia notability. The corps like many organizations seems to do some really good things, but not all such organizations are really Wikipedia notable enough to have articles written about them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Photo copyright

I find it really difficult to get my head around copyright issues. A friend took a photo of a recently deceased mutual friend, who is the subject of an article without any image. The friend is happy for the photo to be used freely, but there is no way that he would create an account or himself upload the photo to Commons. He has no problem with me doing so. How can I establish my right to use the photo? RolandR (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

RolandR: you can upload the image to the commons for him, but he will have to verify his permission by directly emailing the OTRS Team from his own verifiable email releasing the image under a free licence. That linked page has an email template he can use to which he just has to add the name of the file you uploaded, preferable providing the full url. ww2censor (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi RolandR. Just going to add that by uploading the file to Commons, your friend needs to agree to give their WP:CONSENT; this basically means that they will be giving anyone anywhere in the world permission in advance to download the file at anytime and use for any purpose, including for commercial or derivative purposes. Your friend may chose a license that requires anyone re-using the photo to given them proper attribution, but they can't really place any other restrictions on how others may decide to reuse the photo; in other words, someone could download the file from Commons and use it to make money or use it in a way that your friend might not approve of as long as they acknowledge that it was your friend who took the original photo. So, if your friend thinks that they are only giving you or Wikipedia permission to use the photo, then they are mistaken and you should explain to them what giving their consent means. Moreover, once they agree to give their consent and the photo is uploaded to Commons, they really won't be able to change their mind at a later date as explained here. Even if the photo is deleted from Commons, people who downloaded it prior to deletion will be able to continue to use it as they see fit as long as they comply with the terms of the copyright license your friend chooses. So, while Wikipedia really likes it when people agree to upload their photos for articles, it's kind of important that such people fully understand what they're agreeing to when they do so.

Another thing to consider, in addition to copyright, has to do with Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images to articles. Wikipedia, once again, is happy when people upload their photos for use in articles, but it also wants such photos to be of a fairly high quality and have encyclopedic relevance to Wikipedia's readers. Some personal photos might be considered too personal for a Wikipedia article as explained in Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photographs, and a WP:CONSENSUS may be established not to use them even if there are no associated copyright issues to worry about. So, if your friend has a photo that is of fairly good quality and clearly shows Tate's face on a simple background like on the back cover of this book, then nobody would probably have any issues with it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's actually a much better picture than that, taken at a meeting in London in 2014. RolandR (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

​ If your friend wants you to upload that photo, you can do so using c:COM:UPLOAD; you should though try to upload the file with it's original Exif data if possible. Your friend should then send a consent email to Wikimedia OTRS; if possible, they should include either the url address or the name of the file in their email to make it easier for an OTRS volunteer to find the file. Once you've verified that they sent the email, you can add c:Template:OTRS pending to the file's page, After your friend sends their email, they should get an automated reply which contains an OTRS ticket number; this is sort of like a case number and they keep a record of it just in case they need to further email OTRS about anything related to the file. There is also c:COM:OTRSN where you or they can ask general questions, but OTRS volunteers won't discuss anything specific about the emails they receive anywhere on Wikipedia or Commons and they will only discuss those specifics with the person who sends the email; so, you won't be able to get too much information that way. If all of this sounds to complicated, then there is another possibility per c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. If you friend uses social media or has their own website, they can upload the photo there and just add one of the licenses that Commons accepts. After they do this, just upload the photo to Commons and provide a link to where the photo and license can be seen as the source for the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

How do I upload?

How do I upload a image without worrying about copyright infringement and how other people did it cause I see on a lot of pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamilb2004 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a very broad question but let me help you Jamilb2004 If the subject is a person, place, or event, then the best idea is to take a photo yourself and upload it to Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page . If you created the image, then you own the copyright and you can do whatever you want with it. If the subject is a book cover, artwork, or pretty much any media created by someone else, then there are sometimes exceptions which make it "free use". What you can do is look for a wikipedia page that already uses a photo similar to the one you want to upload, click on the photo and look for details, and find out what copyright justification they are using. You may be surprised, many countries have interesting loopholes which allow you to upload certain photos. I myself looked at wikipedia pages of British colonial counterinsurgencies, clicked on the photos, and discovered that images created by the British government before 1 June 1957, are automatically Public Domain. Example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Briggs%27_Plan_civilians_-_IWM_GOV_3821.png

I hope this helps. BulgeUwU (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Artwork copyright question

I am trying to navigate through the U.S. copyright laws regarding images of artwork, specifically paintings. I see that Commons has quite a few paintings by Kazimir Malevich but I could not make out much sense reading their copyright tags. Some say something to the effect that the work is in PD in the U.S. because it was published in its country of origin prior to 1926 (some tags say 1925). What does "published" actually mean for a painting? It is not a book or a film. Does being presented at an art exhibit count? Other tags say something to the effect that more than 80 (or 70 or 75) years passed since the death of the author. Malevich died in May 1935, so almost 86 years ago. What does that mean regarding uploading images of his work to Commons now? Are they all considered to be in PD in the U.S. at this point? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Nsk92: You are touching on several issues with your question; where it was published and the death of the artist. Generally when a painting has been exhibited publicly, it may be considered published. The template {{PD-US}} (1926 is correct) is normally used for files published in the US and anything outside uses different templates, especially PD-art and details of how it is used are here: c:COM:PDART. Anything published in the US pre-1926 is automatically in the public domain. Most artistic work requires the permission of the artist unless they are dead long enough, which in many countries is 70 years. Check the individual country's copyright pages. ww2censor (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you. The works of Malevich that I am interested in were all created and exhibited in Russia in the period 1910-1916. Malevich died in May 1935. The article Copyright law of the Russian Federation says that the maximum period of copyright under the current Russian law is 70 years after the death of the author. So it would seem that in Russia those Malevich paintings are now considered PD. Regarding when a painting may be considered published, I am still a bit worried, though. I asked a similar question at the helpdesk at Commons. Someone there opined that in order for a painting to be published it is not enough that it be exhibited at a public exhibit, but it is also needed that a catalogue of the exhibit with the painting be made available to the public, or else the painting be reproduced in print in some other way (e.g. in a newspaper). I don't know if one needs to worry about this point in relation to Malevich's paintings from 1910-1916 exhibited in Russia at the time (finding the info about catalogues of those exhibits may be quite hard now.) Nsk92 (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Nsk92: I'm not aware of the published argument but considering the artist is dead long enough that point is mute. Also all his commons images are freely licensed, so just follow that criteria. ww2censor (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

c:COM:Russia gives us Life+70, so that means that all of his work fell into PD as of May 2005. Use the commons "PD-Russia" template when uploading. --Masem (t) 15:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. (Earlier I looked at the files of Malevich's other paintings at Commons and they use multiple kinds of license tags, with varying explanations, rather inconsistently, so I became quite confused.) Nsk92 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding a photo - copyright question

Hello,

I am a new editor to Wikipedia, having some trouble uploading a photo to the biography I wrote (Shirley Marie Stinson). When I uploaded the photo, it was promptly removed due to copyright concern. The photo was provided to me by the University of Alberta (Shirley's university) and approved by the executor of Shirley's estate. What are the steps I need to take to get the copyright cleared or be able to upload the photo? Could anyone please advise?

Thank you, Angela — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmbAU2020 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

AmbAU2020: I presume you are asking about the file File:Shirley Stinson-1.jpg that has been deleted. The copyright holder, who may not actually be the university or the estate executor, but usually the original photographer, is the copyright holder and they, or their heirs, must send in their permission to the OTRS team to verify the release of the file under a free licence that we accept. Only then can the file can be restored. ww2censor (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Joan A. Furey possible fair use images?

Would using one of these two images, possibly cropped, be usable as a fair use image for the top image in the article, rather than a photo of an unrelated woman in a dissimilar uniform? In a military hospital In uniform ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

If she is still living, and given that she does not appear to be someone that had a recognized image of her younger career days, then we must use freely-licensed images and can't use non-free fair use images. --Masem (t) 14:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Pretty new and didn't want to cause an issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish. While I agree with what Masem posted, I would also add that the generic image of the nurse at the top of the article should probably be moved to another part of the article. Generally, the best image for the top or lead of a biography article is one of the subject. This location of this image might cause it to be mistaken (despite the caption) by some readers as a photo of Furey herself, at least in my opinion, which is not a good thing. As for a free image of Furey, sometimes WP:PERMISSIONs can work, either by contacting the copyright holder of an image or the subject of the article and asking whether they can either (1) create a new image or (2) release an existing image under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. The photo of Furey working in the hospital you linked to above might possibly even be public domain {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} if it was taken by someone working for the US government as part of their official duties; however, you will need to find out more about the provenance of the image to help establish that. The other photo looks more like a personal photo (perhaps taken by a friend serving with Furey); so, I don't think would be public domain (at least not yet) simply by its age. If, however, you can identify the photographer, then they (if still living) or their estate could release it under a free license Wikipedia accepts; otherwise, it's going to be quite a while before an unpublished and unknown work enters the public domain under US copyright law per c:COM:HIRTLE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Non-free use photos and sources

I am currently having great difficulty working with a photograph to identify the subject of a wiki article I am about to publish. I want to use a non-free use photograph for the wikipedia page of an influential black civil rights activist who is now dead. However, despite all of his acomplishments and fulfilling wikipedia's notability requirements, there are only 2 photographs of his face available online and both are such terrible quality photos that the person is hardly recognisable. The clearest photograph I can find is within a book, but this book is not available online and there would be no way for other editors to check the source without acquiring a physical copy. Would it be acceptable to scan the photo in the book and upload a copy as a non-free use image to his wikipedia page, and then enter the book's title and details as the source? If not, then there is there are more appropriate way to use this photo? I apologise if this is a silly question, but help or advice at all will be greatly appreciated. BulgeUwU (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, scanning the book, and making sure to identify the book and that it is a scan of the book would be perfectly fine for sourcing purposes as a non-free image. --Masem (t) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi BulgeUwU. Just want to add to what Masem posted that while Wikipedia's non-free content use policy does allow non-free images of deceased persons to be uploaded and used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone biography articles, the WP:FREER hurdle can sometimes be difficult to overcome because Wikipedia prefers freely-licensed images be used whenever possible. A non-free image isn't going to automatically be allowed when free equivalent images exist simply be it's of a higher quality. So, if either of the photos you found online are freely-licensed, then some may argue that they are still preferable to a cleaner better quality non-free one. You didn't give the name of the person who were creating an article about, but perhaps it's Dorothy Kuya. A Google image search seems to show more than two images of her used online (some might be of a different person witht eh same name) and some of the quality of these isn't all that different from the one you uploaded; so, if any of the other images are released under a license that Wikipedia accepts, then they should be used instead. Some of the copyright holders of these images might also be willing to give their content for the license to be uploaded under a free license. Did you make any effort outside of a simple Google search to find a freely licensed image to use in the article? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

My search was for Trevor Carter, not Dorothy, but cheers. Thankyou Masem (talk · contribs), that is very helpful advice which will be really useful :) BulgeUwU (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Files uploaded by User:Billbeee

All pictures can be found on http://www.builderbill-diy-help.com/index.html, uploader says it's his website, explicitly here. Is this a credible evidence of permission? (Can the images be moved to commons?). --TheImaCow (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheImaCow. Since Wikipedia pages can be pretty much edited by anyone and Wikipedia accounts can be pretty much created by anyone, I'm not sure that such a user talk page post would be considered an acceptable form of license verification, except perhaps if the account holder's identity is verified by WP:OTRS per Template:Verified account. If, however, they are going to go to that trouble, then it would also seem to be just as easy to verify their WP:CONSENT to release all their uploads as licensed, by simply emailing OTRS about the files; one email could be sent to cover all of the files from the website. Another option (as explained here) might be to simply add an acceptable license to the website for all of the images. Finally, any photos of other possibly copyrighted objects (like File:Billbee-angkor-thom.JPG and File:Angkor-dead-shores.jpg) might be a bit tricky to resolve in some cases if they are deemed to be a WP:Derivative work in which there are two copyrights involved. I doubt Angkor Wat is still protected by copyright since it is so old, but photos of other buildings or artwork (even publically displayed works) could depend upon whether there's freedom of panorama in the country of origin. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Just want to add that a simple statement on a file’s page did use to be accepted as sufficient verification of licensing in some cases before the OTRS system was set up back in 2006. See c:COM:GRANDFATHER for more details. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Hokiebird.jpg From Virginia Tech Hokies file can be transferred?

This Hokie Bird file of the Virginia Tech mascot has a tag to transfer to commons, was going to try do it but then I looked a bit more and just not sure as it appears the editor that has uploaded it, is more than capable of uploading photos to commons normally and is still editing, so questioned why this was in Wikipedia instead of Commons in the first place and if I was missing somerthing.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 07:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think sometimes photos like this are uploaded to Wikipedia because that's where the uploader wants to use them. Lots of editors (articularly new editors) of Wikipedia articles aren't aware of Commons; so, they upload their files to Wikipedia instead. There are also some editors who have had some bad experiences with Commons and, therefore, don't want anything to do with it; so, they upload there files locally to Wikipedia. This particular photo was uploaded way back in 2007 (maybe before Commons was widely used), but the uploader is still an active editor; so, you could ask about them about this. One thing about mascot photos though is that they sometimes can be considered a WP:Derivative work as explained in c:COM:COSTUME. If the image of the character is protected by copyright, any photos focusing soley on that character might not be acceptable to either Wikipedia or Commons without the consent of the creator of the mascot imagery. This particular photo probably would be considered a case of de minimis since it's part of a larger scene and the mascot isn't the sole focus of the photo, but this might even be a bit too optimistic of an assessment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok wow, there really is a lot to it eh, wouldn't have even thought about that but it makes sense from the colleges point of view. Think may leave this one then. Thanks for the reply.NZFC^(talk)(cont) 09:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

question file deletion

This file (File:1322 Golden Empire Tower Manila.jpg) has been nominated for deletion in september last year, but no action was taken after that. Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Saschaporsche. That particular file was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia, and the discussion about it is taking place over at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:1322 Golden Empire Tower Manila.jpg; so, there not much than can be done about it from Wikipedia. If you feel that the file should be kept or deleted, you can post a comment stating as much in the aforementioned deletion discussion. If you want to request that a Commons administrator close the deletion discussion, you can do so over at c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. Just for reference, there tend to be many more files nominated for deletion over at Commons than there are administrators; so, sometimes this can mean that a deletion discussion might remain open for a long time before it's closed, unless you specifically ask an administrator to close it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your answer. kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Facebook images

Is the use of an image on Wikipedia grabbed from the subject's Facebook page a violation of copyright policies as practiced by Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiffer (talk • contribs) 18:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wiffer. In most cases, it would probably be considered a WP:COPYVIO; however, if the file has been released on Facebook under a free license that Wikipedia accepts or is otherwise considered to be within the public domain, then it might be OK to upload such a file to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. There might even be some instances where such a file could be used as non-free content. In order to better answer your question though, you will need to provide more information about the image and its provenance as well as about how you intend to use it on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I just started an entry for jazz drummer Joel Rosenblatt and would like to use this image from his Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10210376342438875&set=t.1022273482&type=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiffer (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The copyright to that one (as shown clearly in the lower right corner) belongs to Jože Požrl. We certainly can't use it without his license under one of the licenses we accept. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Book cover for Anthony Czarnik

Hello, Dr. Czarnik is a Wikipedian using the account AWCzarnik, he has requested that an image for a cover on one of his books be added to his article. (For reference, see his talk page for more info on this.) A previous attempt was removed, but he apparently has permission from the publisher to use the image. Is it OK to reupload, or is there still a problem with doing so? Thanks in advance. - Indefensible (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You'll need to check with the Editor of this article. I don't know. - AWCzarnik (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Indefensible and AWCzarnik. The answer is most likely no unless the copyright holder of the book cover art (which generally seems to be the publishing company or in some cases the book’s author) agrees to upload the files under an acceptable free license as explained here and here. Most book covers tend to be protected by copyright. Wikipedia does allow copyrighted content to be uploaded and used as non-free, but the use of copyrighted book covers (see item 1 of WP:NFCI, but this use tends to be limited to stand-alone articles about the books themselves as explained here. Another thing to consider besides copyright is whether seeing the book covers is encyclopedically relevant to readers. Simply adding book cover images to articles for the sake of adding them is probably not going to be considered appropriate by others even if the covers are freely licensed.

One image that would really improve the article would be an image of the subject to use for primary purposes in the main infobox. So, if AWCzarnik can provide such a free image, then that would be better for the article than images of book covers. — Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Marchjuly. - Indefensible (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Marchjuly and Indefensible I found quite a few examples of using low resolution images under fair use rationale license, which is used for many books and illustrations. This particular license might fit near the relevant book section for educational and encyclopedic purposes only and doesn’t present any danger of commercial use due to its very low resolution and irrelevance.

Sorry for this table here - it is just a sample.

--DrIlyaTsyrlov (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What you've added above is not a copyright license, but is rather a non-free use rationale. If you upload a non-free file, you will need to provide both a copyright license (like {{Non-free book cover}}) and a non-free use rationale. In most cases, one copyright license is all that is needed, but a separate specific non-free use rationale is need for each use of the file (i.e. if the file is used twice, a rationale needs to be provided for each use). The rationale you provide above would probably be OK if the file was being used for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about Fluorescent Chemosensors for ion and Molecule Recognition. However, it looks like you intend to use the file in a Anthony Czarnik#Books just to show the cover of the book. I don't think that's going to be considered acceptable per WP:NFC#cite_note-3. If you think the book is notable per WP:NBOOK, then perhaps you can create an article about it and use the book cover image there. Otherwise, you're going to have to add sourced critical commentary about the book's cover itself (not just the book) to the Czarnik article if you want to try and justify the file's use in that article. To be completely honest, there's almost no way to justify the use of any non-free book covers in the "Books" section of the Czarnik article per WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFLISTS. The section is noting but an embedded list of books written by Czarnik and non-free images are simply not allowed to be used to illustrate bibliography, discography, filmography, etc. types of sections in article about authors, musicians, actors, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

YouTube CC-BY video for limited time

Hi! I was hoping to get a freely licensed image of Christina Soontornvat from this Youtube link, which will be livestreaming in about 14 hours and has already been tagged with the YouTube Creative Commons Attribution license (commons:Template:YouTube CC-BY). But I just noticed the video description, where they proactively mention that they'll be taking down the recording a month from now, on March 18, 2021. Does this present any issues with capturing a screengrab of Soontornvat for use in the article? Best, DanCherek (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nope, Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable, so the content can still be used under the terms of the license even after the content was deleted. Hopefully c:User:YouTubeReviewBot will confirm the license, but you should probably bug a license reviewer if it doesn't as obviously the license will not be able to be verified after it is deleted. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 08:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! DanCherek (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Company logo

Hi, I would like to add a logo to a company page and I took their logo from google, how can I know what kind of license they used for their logo? Is it's from google do I need to specify the type of license? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mareglite2021 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mareglite2021: The company likely reserves all rights to their logo, unless they state otherwise, if the logo consists of simple shapes or text then it could be too simple to be protected under copyright (c:Template:PD-textlogo). If uploading to Commons, you need to take into account the source country as well, for example the UK has a low threshold of originality (c:COM:TOO UK) so logos created there could be protected even if the logo is simple but has some originality. Images uploaded locally on the English Wikipedia only have to be free in the US, so you only need to take into account the threshold of originality in the US (c:COM:TOO US). However if the logo is not simple enough to be in the public domain, then one logo can be uploaded as a non-free logo being used for identification in the top of the infobox, this should only be done once the article is in the mainspace as non-free images are not allowed outside article space. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 00:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Civil War photo, unknown author

I have this photograph: https://i.imgur.com/3DRm6rj.jpeg of a civil war veteran, taken between 1861-1862. It should be public domain, yes? How can I, if I can, upload the image if I don't know the photographer's name Smt42 (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Smt42: Is the posting to Imgur is the first time this image has ever been published then yes it is in the public domain - see c:Commons:Commons:Hirtle chart#Works except sound recordings and architecture, the first section regarding old unpublished works. If it has been previously published then you need to go by the date of publication in the second section. I don't see it having been published with (copyright) notice. Nthep (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Working for businesses in Papua New Guinea and visual complications...

To whom it may concern,

As a marketer, researcher and graphic designer/photographer - I do a lot of work in the corporate and political world of Papua New Guinea. Unfortunately, companies do not know how to engage marketing/design/digital topics but want visibility on wikipedia. As a result, I create a lot of visual content myself (photos, logos, collateral, etc) and am not sure how to approach wikipedia in uploading content I have created for companies or government figures/profiles. (Eg. At the moment, Kina Bank wants me to publish a page that is trying to squash misinformation about Fu Shan.)

Even though companies want me to upload their logos and relevant images to their wikipedia page(s), I am sure to do something wrong in the process. I've gone through legal channels on this issue and they have not been forthcoming with what I can and can't do. Your guidance would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnginitiator (talk • contribs) 04:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pnginitiator. Before I try and answer your questions about logos, I just want to point out that the part of your post where you write Unfortunately, companies do not know how to engage marketing/design/digital topics but want visibility on wikipedia. makes it seems as if either you or the companies you refer are some important things about Wikipedia; so, it might be a good idea for you to take a look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In addition, if you're trying to edit or create content about any companies you have a personal or professional connection to, then you probably should take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

As for your question about logos and their copyright licensing, you’ll find some general information in Wikipedia:Logos, Wikipedia:Non-free content, c:Commons:Licensing, c:Commons:Threshold of originality and c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Papua New Guinea. Basically, there are two types of logos you find used on Wikipedia: (1) those considered to be protected by copyright; and (2) those considered to be ineligible for copyright protection for some reason or those which are protected by copyright but which have released by their respective copyright holders under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

use of photo from relative of Wikipedia bio

I would like to add a photo to a biography that I have recently edited. I was provided a photo by a relative (a daughter) who would like it included. The photo was also provided to a local newspaper when they wrote an article about his life and it is attributed as provided by the family. The bio is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Edwards_(physicist).Taphys (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Really you need to know who took the photo, and thus who owns the copyright. Then the easiest is if they upload it themselves. Or harder to use WP:OTRS if they want to release the image under a free license. Since the subject is dead it may be possible to have a photo included under WP:Fair use. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Is uploading a deceased person's uncopyrighted resume free use?

Hi, is uploading a deceased person's uncopyrighted resume considered free use? The person (Bill Nimmo) gave me a hardcopy of his resume a few months before passing away. The resume is used several times as a source in the wikipedia article about him. Invent4hir (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what value there would to uploading a copy of Nimmo's resume/CV per WP:TEXTASIMAGES since most likely the information contained on the resume could be added to the article as prose. Now, if you're asking whether the resume would be considered a reliable source to support content about Nimmo, then that's a completely different question altogether that doesn't really have anything to do with copyright. My guess is that the resume would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source which means there are limitations on how it can be used. You might want to ask about this by starting a discussion at Talk:Bill Nimmo or asking for input at WP:RSN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an unpublished resume is a reliable source for much of anything. It's a bad case of hearsay, even worse than the usual self-published sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

And the resume would still be covered by copyright. Only if it stated that it was public domain or something like that could copyright be waived. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama and art works in the United States

I mean to illustrate an article with two pictures I've taken. The first one, is a mural in San Antonio, Texas. I've read a little about the copyright of murals, but it is not clear to me who really owns it (or if a copyright even applies to this type of murals at all). It is part of the Community Mural Program of San Anto Cultural Arts, a non-profit. Would the organization own a claim, the artist, the owner of the building itself or no one? The second one is a picture of the panorama of Austin, Texas from Doug Sahm Hill. A memorial plaque is visible, but it is not the main subject of the picture. Now, I guess that plaques are copyrighted such as statues are. But if a plaque/statue is seen on the background, but it is not the main subject of the picture: would it be allowed on the Commons?GDuwenHoller! 19:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The United States does grant freedom of panorama for architectural works like buildings, but not for works of art (at least not ones installed after 1978) as explained in c:COM:FOP United States. You might some helpful information about murals in c:COM:CB#Murals. My understanding is that it's the artist who paints the mural who holds the copyright on it, unless it was a work for hire or there was a copyright transfer agreement involved. Since the mural you're asking about dates to 2009, my guess is that it's protected by copyright and thus the WP:CONSENT (if you upload the file to Wikipedia) or c:COM:OTRS/CONSENT (if you upload the file to Commons) of the artist is going to be needed to uploaded the file under a free license. It might be possible to upload a photo of the mural locally to Wikipedia as non-free content, but that will depend on a number of factors and whether the way the photo is use complies with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There is actually another issue at play with respect to this photo because it's not taken straight on. If someone just stood in front of the mural and took a photo of it without any other elements in it, then probably only the copyright of the mural itself would need to be considered per c:COM:2D copying since the photo would be treated as a slavish reproduction. Since the photo was, however, taken from a certain perspective and seems to involve other creative input, it probably could be considered a WP:Derivative work. If it is, then the copyright of the photo also would also need to be taken into consideration. So, the consent of both copyright holders would be needed to upload the file under a free license, and the consent of the copyright holder of the photo might even still be needed just to upload the file as non-free content (per WP:FREER).

As for the plaque, there was no link provided for the photo, but it probably depends upon whether it's deemed c:COM:De minimis; if its inclusion is considered incidental and not the focus of the photo, then the photo might be considered OK to upload as is or maybe with the plaque imagery blurred out in some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: That is interesting information, I may try to contact the artist regarding the mural. About the plaque, I took a number of pictures of it and the surrounding area. I'll try to find one that features the plaque c:COM:De minimis, or just maybe a view from the hill in which the plaque is not at all visible.--GDuwenHoller! 14:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

About picture

Can you check the possibility of publishing this photo File:Anis al-Naqqash.jpg about a recently deceased person (Anis al-Naqqash)? I think he was the first to post it on his personal Twitter account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amrahlawymasry (talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 February 2021

Amrahlawymasry: Most likely not because there is no information about its copyright status, so it is most likely in copyright. Even under our strict non-free media policy WP:NFCC it is too soon to be certain no free images exist. ww2censor (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Article with large quotes, and revdel template removed

Similar question to my above question about block quotes. Over at Gain of function research, I placed a revdel template and the infringer removed it. [4] Turns out there were 4 large paragraphs almost completely in quotation marks, and I didn't notice the quotation marks. (Make sure to scroll all the way down in diff.) Thoughts on the appropriateness of using such large quotations here? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Article with many block quotes

Quick question about big lie. It uses a lot of block quotes. Mein Kamph (first block quote) is in the public domain so that's probably fine from a copyright perspective, but the other block quotes concern me. Seems like a violation of Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources#What about quotes?, which says "This means that the quotation must not be replaceable with free text (including one that the editor writes)". Looking for a second opinion to make sure my interpretation is correct. I'm getting pushback from the editors at that article, and I would not feel comfortable doing a trim or rewrite because they would just revert it. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's not an issue on that article. When look at problematic amounts of quotes, we're looking to how much was taken from a single source. Multiple sources are used, and only about two pararaphs at most seem to be used, which is a very small amount relative to the full size of the original works. Given that this article necessarily requires the input of historians of what is considered a "big lie", verbatim quotes seem nearly required, and as long as only short bits are used, it should be fine. --Masem (t) 23:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license,

Can this image from flickr qualify as acceptable ? http://kanchotabatabaei.yolasite.com/resources/P1020803.JPG?timestamp=1450876095454g

If not, how can one attain an acceptable license for uploading such image file on commons? Wikichenan (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the flickr page to that image to check the license? The image alone doesn't help. --Masem (t) 19:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikichenan: No, the Flickr image is "All rights reserved" so we can't use it. I found the image on Flickr here as well as on the mentioned site here. You would have to get the copyright holder, who is normally the photographer, to provide a completed permission statement releasing the image under a free licence via the OTRS Team. ww2censor (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)