View source for Wiki143:Media copyright questions

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

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(14d)
| archive = Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
| minthreadsleft = 0
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
}}<!--PLEASE ADD QUESTIONS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, NOT HERE. THANKS!-->

== Images of interiors of the Federal Administrative Court with CC BY-NC possible? ==

Hello,

My problem: I would like to upload images (spherical panoramas) of the interior of the [[Federal Administrative Court (Germany)|Federal Administrative Court]]. However, according to an enquiry to the press office of the Federal Administrative Court, the images may only be uploaded and used under a CC BY-NC licence. The press office refers to the domestic authority.

My question: Can I upload these images to the English Wikipedia as ‘non free / fair use’ and under the ‘CC BY-NC’ licence and use them in the Federal Administrative Court article?

Many thanks in advance for your answers and best regards --[[User:Joachim Köhler|Joachim Köhler]] ([[User talk:Joachim Köhler|talk]]) 09:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

PS: I am a user on the German Wikipedia - see my [[:de:User:Joachim_Köhler|German user page]]. [[User:Joachim Köhler|Joachim Köhler]] ([[User talk:Joachim Köhler|talk]]) 09:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
: Hi {{u|Joachim Köhler}}. Creative Commons NC-ND licenses are too restrictive for [[:WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files|Wikipedia's general licensing]]; so, anything licensed as such is going to need to be treated as [[:WP:NFC|non-free content]]. This means each use of such content is going to need to satisfy [[:WP:NFCC|Wikipedia's non-free content use policy]], i.e., all ten non-free content use criteria listed [[:WP:NFCCP]]. Assuming you're asking about using these images in [[:Federal Administrative Court (Germany)]], it's hard to say for sure without knowing more about the images themselves and how you intend to use them; however, just from looking at the article, I think you're going to have a really hard time justifying the use of any non-free image of the interior per [[:WP:NFCC#1]] ([[:WP:FREER]]) and [[:WP:NFCC#8]] ([[:WP:NFC#CS]] and [[:WP:DECORATIVE]]). Perhaps if you provide a link to the one image you think would best satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and a brief explanation as to where in the article you want to use it, then maybe someone could give you a more detailed assessment. Finally, just for reference, I took a look at [[:de:Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Deutschland)]] out of curiosity, and there are several "free" images of the exterior and interior of the court uploaded to Commons found in [[:c:Category:Interior of Reichsgericht Leipzig]]. I don't know whether these are OK for Commons to host per se per [[:c:COM:Germany]], but they could, in principle, be used in the English Wikipedia article (assuming their copyright licenses are correct), which would make it pretty much make it impossible for any similar non-free image to meet WP:FREER. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 09:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::Hello {{u|Marchjuly}}, thank you for your reply. If the images really have to fulfil all ten criteria for the use of non-free content, then unfortunately I cannot upload these images to the English Wikipedia. - To explain what I wanted to do. There are already six spherical panoramas of the interior of the Federal Administrative Court on Commons. For example this one:

{{PanoViewer|2024-04-06_140334_Leipzig_Bundesverwaltungsgericht_Kuppelhalle.jpg|upright=1.3|2=Domed Hall Federal Administrative Court}}

::But there are people on these spherical panoramas, the resolution is low and I think I got the exposure better (with HDR). That's why I wanted to upload better spherical panoramas. I'd rather not ask here whether the users have all asked the Federal Administrative Court for permission. I asked and unfortunately received the answer that only a CC BY-NC licence is possible. So I can no longer upload these spherical panoramas. Too bad, but thanks again for your answer and best regards --[[User:Joachim Köhler|Joachim Köhler]] ([[User talk:Joachim Köhler|talk]]) 11:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Joachim Köhler}} Whether you can upload such files to Commons might depend upon [[:c:COM:FOP Germany]] and how it applies to the Federal Administrative Court. For countries that allow full [[:freedom of panorama]] for the exteriors of buildings (e.g., [[:c:COM:FOP US|the United States]]), only the copyright status of the photograph itself is relevant when it comes to Commons; for countries that don't allow freedom of panorama for buildings (e.g., [[:c:COM:FOP France|France]]), not only the copyright status of the photograph but also the copyright status of the building itself needs to be considered. In the case of the court, it could be that photographs taken by the it's press office are licensed as NC-ND because that's what the press office wants to do, but photographs taken by private citizens can be licensed anyway the photographer wants. So, it might be a good idea to ask the press office about this kind of thing if you're interested in pursuing it further. As for the files already uploaded to Commons, lots of people mean well but simply don't really do their due dilligence when it comes to assessing the copyright status of their own photos; they assume that any photo they take automatically is OK for Commons because they're copyright holder of the photo without even considering whether their photo is a [[:c:COM:DW|derivative work]] incoporating copyright protected content created by others. In addition, there tends to be different rules for interior photography, and Germany's freedom of panorama doesn't seem to extend to building interiors; so, some people might mistakenly assume that freedom of panorama applies to both the exterior and interior of buildings in Germany. I guess there could be buildings in Germany that are so old that even their interiors are no longer eligible for copyright protection or with interiors that are too simple to eligible for copyright protection; so, such photos might be OK for Commons for reasons other than freedom of panorama. The photo you linked to above could be such a case depending upon the age of the building or the simplicity of its interior design. The court, of course, might have its own [[:c:COM:NCR|house rules]] regarding interior photography that are unrelated to German copyright law, but such things aren't really a concern of Commons. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 14:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Hello {{u|Marchjuly}}, thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, according to German copyright law, freedom of panorama does not apply indoors, only to outdoor views under certain conditions. I have asked the press office several times and put forward various arguments, but in the end I have not received a reply for about four months. They invoke their domiciliary rights, which must be observed in Germany. They demand that interior shots be published under a CC BY-NC licence, but this is not permitted on Commons. It's a real shame that the Federal Administrative Court has created an insurmountable hurdle here. Thanks again and best regards --[[User:Joachim Köhler|Joachim Köhler]] ([[User talk:Joachim Köhler|talk]]) 15:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::You might want to ask about this at [[:c:COM:VPC]] or on German Wikipedia. The press office can pretty much say anything want, but what they say and what Germany's copyright law says might not be exactly the same thing. The court might have its own house rules against interior photography, but those aren't necessarily related to the copyright status of the interior. Standard or utilitarian features like doors, windows, floors, ceiling, stairways, atriums, pillars, etc. might not be considered creative enough to being eligible for copyright protection, unless they're ornately decorated or unique in some other way; for example, a stained glass window or decorative mural on a wall could be eligible for copyright protection, particularly if still too new to not be ineligible for copyright protection because of its age, but a standard window (pane and framing) or a plain undecorated wall is probably not going to be eligible for copyright protection regardless of how old it is. The press office could be trying to protect any commercial interests it has selling photos or whatever of the inside of the court, but that doesn't necessary mean the interior is eligible for copyright protection. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 06:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
{{od|5}}
Thank you for your answer. I have already asked on [[:c:Commons_talk:Licensing/de#Bilder_von_Innenräumen_des_Bundesverwaltungsgerichts_nur_nicht-kommerziell?|Commons]]. I don't think this is a copyright issue, but a problem with the owner's rights. The owner of the building can decide whether photos may be taken (which is permitted) and under what conditions they may be published. And they strictly require CC BY-NC, which is not accepted on Commons. Best regards --[[User:Joachim Köhler|Joachim Köhler]] ([[User talk:Joachim Köhler|talk]]) 18:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
:Just for reference, Commons most likely isn't going to care about the "house rules" of the court when it comes to hosting any such photo; it's only concern will be the copyright status of the photo and whatever is photographed as explained in [[:c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography]]. So, you won't probably won't have to worry about your Commons account getting blocked or anything like that. Out in the real world, though, things could get messy, especially if the press office knows who you are and decides to go after you. The press office could try to seek redress for reasons other than the photo being a copyright violation. Given that there seems to be several other photos of the court's exterior and interior already uploaded to Commons, the possible real-world risks of trying to upload another one might not be worth it. Finally, this might be a [[:Hail Mary pass|Hail Mary]] type of suggestion, but you could try emailing the WMF or its designated agent about this via [[:Wikipedia:Contact us/Licensing]]. You might get a response explaining the WMF position on such things. The WMF likely won't advocate on your behalf, but they might provide you with a more definite response or information that might be helpful. Plus, it will all be by email, i.e., just between you and the WMF. Everything you've posted on Commons, English Wikipedia or German Wikipedia so far is out in the [[:WP:REALWORLD]], and it's there for everyone to see. I'm not suggesting you've posted anything wrong per se; only that what you've posted so far can be seen be all. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 20:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Joachim Köhler|Joachim Köhler]]@[[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] hello. I just passed by this discussion.
::I think the interior architecture of the building may be OK locally on English Wikipedia. Per a 2012 discussion which led to the creation of {{tlx|FoP-USonly}}, only US law matters on enwiki and enwiki has no obligation to comply with stricter laws that either limit exploitations of architectural works to exterior architecture only (e.g. Germany or Türkiye) or restrict liberal/commercial uses of all architectures altogether (e.g. France or the Philippines). Any restriction from Germany, whether with intervention from architects or not, do not apply to enwiki, and enwiki can freely host images of interior architecture of Federal Administrative Court. US FoP, for architecture only, doesn't distinguish exterior and interior architecture, as long as the building itself can be seen from publicly-accessible places. It's like, once a building can be seen by the public, the architects' image rights are denied in an instant. The architects or their assignees no longer have the rights to control the public's intents in photographing ''both'' the exterior and the interior of the building.
::Of course, the ''[[lex loci protectionis]]'' principle that enwiki and most other US-hosted sites uphold aren't yet tested by architectural complaints outside the US, but, [[WP:NOTCRYSTAL]] of course. Within US, though, a minority of architects don't seem to be in favor with "total surrender" of their rights to the public (see [[Freedom of panorama in the United States#Reception]]), but luckily, majority of architects there do not oppose panorama exception rights (unlike in the likes of France and Morocco where architect's rights are too strong to be resisted). <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 03:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Oh, it appears to be owner's rights. As per [[c:COM:Non-copyright restrictions]], Commons only handles the copyright-related issues in the general sense. If the interior architecture is of a German building whose architect died for more than 70 years, then it can be freely hosted on Commons. Beware of newer pieces of works like murals and window/wall designs which may be treated as separate works under German law, but acceptable under US law as "architectural elements" and not distinct artistic elements. Such pieces can be hosted here even in highest resolutions (though I don't know if enwiki had received DMCA notices concerning unfree architecture or interior elements in the past.
:::If you're from Germany, Joachim, then it may be risky to violate non-copyright rules, though, based on my comprehension of the case files you shared here. It seems there is strong enforcement of moral rights and house rules in Germany. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 04:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

== JJMC89 bot Deleted Image in use elsewhere ==

Hello.

I recently edited the UK law page ''[[Ivey v Genting Casinos]]'', the infobox was without an image, and it seems standard practice in these circumstances to use the emblem of the court that decided the case.

I used Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2024).svg, which I found in the article for the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom|UK Supreme Court]].

[[User:JJMC89 bot]] deleted the image for being "non-free content". 

I do notice now that the version on the Supreme Court page lists its source as the UK government, but the version used on the page ''[[Paul v Wolverhampton]]'' says it is "own work" of [[User:Sodacan]] 

I assume there is some sort of rights issue in using the actual badge of the Supreme Court on anything other than its own article? Can someone explain this to me so I can avoid similar mistakes in future?

Many thanks. [[User:Hand Of Eunomia|Hand Of Eunomia]] ([[User talk:Hand Of Eunomia|talk]]) 22:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Hand Of Eunomia}} First of all, the bot didn't delete the file, but rather removed it from an article where its use wasn't satisfying Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as explained [[:WP:NFCCE|here]]. That particular bot always leaves an edit summary when it removes a file, and that edit summary contains a link to [[:WP:NFC#Implementation]]. Did you see the edit summary the bot left and look at the page it linked to? Bascially, all non-free content is required to have two things: a [[:WP:ICT/FU|non-free copyright license]] and a [[:WP:FUR|non-free use rationale]]. It pretty much all cases one copyright license is sufficient for a file regardless of how many times it's used, but [[:WP:NFCC|Wikipedia's non-free content use policy]] is quite restrictive and there are [[:WP:NFCCP|ten criteria]] that each use of non-free content need to satisfy for the use to be considered OK. One of these criteria (actually one part of one of the criteria) is [[:WP:NFCC#10c|critierion #10c]]. This criteria states that a separate, specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use of the file. Most likely you add the file to the article from which it was removed, but didn't add a corresponding non-free use rationale to the file's page. JJMC89 bot is tasked with finding files that aren't in compliance with criterion #10c. When it finds a file, it removes said file if it's unable to fix the problem itself. So, you can stop the bot from removing the file again by adding the rationale required for the use to the file's page and then re-adding the file. However, adding a rationale for a non-free use is [[:WP:JUSTONE]] of the aforementioned ten criteria, and the file's non-free use can still be challenged by someone if they feel the use (even with the rationale) still fails one of the other criteria. Generally, non-free logos are OK to use for primary identification in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about whatever the logo represents; using the logo in other articles or in other ways, on the other hand, becomes much harder to justify in terms of Wikipedia policy. So, a non-free logo for a court is probably fine for primary identification purposes in the main article about the court, but probably isn't OK for use in other articles even if they're related to the court in some way. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 12:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{hidden ping|Hand Of Eunomia}}I didn't catch that your question was a two-parter. The file being used in [[:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom]] ([[:File:Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (2024).svg]]) and the one used in ''[[:Paul v Wolverhampton]]'' ([[:File:Badge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.svg]]) are different in terms of how they're licensed and where they're uploaded; so, they're not subject to all the same Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The one used in the Wolverhampton article is uploaded to Commons and isn't licensed as non-free content. It appears to be its creator's rendition of official version of the court's logo uploaded locally to English as non-free content. The court's logo could be argued to be more of a coat-of-arms than logo per se, and coat-of-arms (COA) are treated differently than logos by Commons as explained in [[:c:COM:COA]]. This mainly has to do with how the copyright status of a COA is assessed. There are two elements of a COA, the [[:blazon]] and emblazon. Since the blazon tends to be nothing but a written description/definition of what the COA is supposed to look like, it's not considered to be eligible for copyright protection on its own; the emblazon, however, is a visual interpretation/rendition of the blazon, and thus can be eligible for copyright protection with the copyright being held its creator. There can be different emblazons created by different individuals based on the same blazon, and each embazon can be eligible for copyright protection separately from the other. So, the emblazon by the court is its interpretation and the one created by {{u|Sodacan}} is their interpretation so to speak; as long as Sodacan's embazon is considered different enough to not be considered a [[:c:COM:2D copying|slavish/mechanical reproduction]] (i.e., a copyright violation) of the court's emblazon, it's probably OK for Commons from a copyright license standpoint. If you have concerns about that, you would need to discuss them either with Sodacan themselves or at [[:c:COM:VPC]] since copyright-related issues with Commons files need to be discussed on Commons. For what it's worth, an emblazon could be too old to still be eligible for copyright protection, too simple to have ever been eligible for copyright protection, or otherwise be declared to be within the [[:WP:PD|public domain]] by law, but I don't think any of those things apply to the court's emblazon per [[:c:COM:TOO UK]]; so, unless the court decides to release its emblazon under a license that's [[:WP:COPY#Guidleines for images and other media files|free enough for Wikipedia's purposes]], Wikipedia will treat it as non-free content. Whether Sodacan's version is a good enough emblazon to be used in Wikipedia articles about the court's cases isn't really a copyright-related discussion per se, and is probably something that should be discussed either at the [[:WP:DISCUSS|individual article talk page level]] or at the [[:WP:WPPJ|WikiProject talk page level]]. You could start a discussion about it at [[:WP:FFD]] if you want, but I suggest trying one of the other two places first to get a feel of what others might think. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 21:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
<s>::I dont condone any of this. To be hacked & dictated to.is illegal. I have everything here & i certainly didnt agree to a single thing. I want my devices back to normal & not be held hostage
::Edit all you like as we have already seen there's no agreement to anything but rather royally hacked. [[Special:Contributions/149.167.15.110|149.167.15.110]] ([[User talk:149.167.15.110|talk]]) 11:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)</s>
::Thank you for your reply. That explains everything.
::I have no idea what this other reply is about. [[User:Hand Of Eunomia|Hand Of Eunomia]] ([[User talk:Hand Of Eunomia|talk]]) 23:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

== MIT Building photo question ==

Hello! I am editing a page dedicated to the The Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE) at MIT and am having trouble assessing the licensing of several photos. For example, I would like to include this image of the Fairchild Buildings: https://listart.mit.edu/art-artists/fairchild-buildings-1971

The instructions presented by Wikipedia are likely comprehensive, but I have had difficulty interpreting them. [[User:GatheringMoss11|GatheringMoss11]] ([[User talk:GatheringMoss11|talk]]) 17:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @[[User:GatheringMoss11|GatheringMoss11]], images on that site will be covered by the notice at the bottom, "© MIT List Visual Arts Center, all rights reserved", and generally aren't suitable for use on Wikipedia. However in this case, that appears to be a copy of [[:File:Fairchild Building (MIT) - DSC00278.JPG]], whose author has made it available for use without any conditions. You can find a few other images of the building at [[:commons:Category:Fairchild Building (MIT Building 38)]]. [[User:hinnk|hinnk]] ([[User talk:hinnk|talk]]) 19:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you! [[User:GatheringMoss11|GatheringMoss11]] ([[User talk:GatheringMoss11|talk]]) 21:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

== File:Kennedy bros.jpg ==

I wanted to reach out regarding [[:File:Kennedy bros.jpg]] (which was also uploaded to Wikimedia Commons [[c:File:Kennedy bros.jpg]]). It was uploaded as public domain claiming the author was "United states Sentate" based on [https://web.archive.org/web/19970614024909/http://www.senate.gov/~kennedy/photo.html its usage on then-Senator Kennedy's Senate website]. Other websites seem to either credit AP or the JFK Presidential Library. After contacting the JFK library, I received this response:

<blockquote>
That image is PX 79-35 and we say that the photos is (c) unknown, with no known claims. There's no evidence here that this is a UPI/Getty Images image... There is the risk that someone could claim copyright, and you would assume that risk in using the image publicly.
</blockquote>

I can send the full email to someone for full context if necessary. To me, it seemed to imply that while they owned the physical photograph, they do not know who owns the copyright for that image. I don't believe it is copyrighted by a stock image company or news agency but more likely whomever took the original photograph.

I believe the image and its usage should be replaced with [[c:File:President Kennedy and his brothers. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Senator Edward Moore Kennedy, President John... - NARA - 194238.jpg]] which has a much clearer line of provenance (as it was taken by a White House photographer) although it is in B/W and not color. I wanted to ask here whether my line of reasoning made sense and whether the aforementioned image should be deleted. [[User:Johnkinslow|John Kinslow]] ([[User talk:Johnkinslow|talk]]) 00:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi John, thanks for looking into this. I should note that files at Commons are automatically displayed here with the same file name, which is what you're seeing here. The version originally uploaded to Wikipedia {{Page log|File:Kennedy bros.jpg|was deleted in 2009}}, and now it's hosted at Commons, which has its own [[:c:Commons:Deletion requests|deletion process]] and [[:Commons:Village pump/Copyright|copyright discussion page]].
:Based on what you've found, I agree the {{tl|PD-USGov-Congress}} tag definitely seems wrong, since the image was hosted on a Senate website but without any indication that it was the work of an employee. It's hard to say what its actual copyright status is without knowing how it came to be published and distributed. If the owner gave it directly to the Kennedys or their archive and they first published it with consent through the web site, then it's likely still under copyright. If it's an agency photo that the archive has a copy of, then it comes down to whether the image was published around the time of its creation, whether there was a valid copyright notice, and whether that copyright was renewed (see "Works Registered or First Published in the U.S." in [[:c:Commons:Hirtle chart]]).
:If you're looking to find more definitive information about its copyright status, hopefully that gives you some direction. If you're just looking for what the next step in the process is, I think the faulty {{tl|PD-USGov-Congress}} tag alone is enough reason to [[:c:Commons:Deletion requests#Starting requests|start a deletion request at Commons]] and then update the English Wikipedia articles if Commons decides to delete. [[User:hinnk|hinnk]] ([[User talk:hinnk|talk]]) 01:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

== File:Extreme car driving simulator app icon.jpeg ==

I found this image in https://www.extremecardrivingsimulator.com but i don't know what copyright law must i use <span style="background:#000000">[[User:BeastBoy-X|<span style="color:#00ff00">'''''⟨⟨BeastBoy-X'''''</span>]][[User talk:BeastBoy-X|<span style="color:#00ff00">'''''-Talk!⟩⟩'''''</span>]]</span> 02:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hi [[User:BeastBoy-X|BeastBoy-X]], it looks like this is promotional artwork for a video game, for which the {{tl|Non-free use rationale video game cover}} rationale and {{tl|Non-free game cover}} licensing tag can be used. You can see an example at [[:File:FNAF1logo.jpg]]. However, non-free images are <u>only</u> allowed in articles. Since this image is being used in a draft (you'll see [[User:BeastBoy-X/Draft:Extreme car driving simulator]] has the User: prefix), it's likely to be deleted in a few days.
:My advice would be to focus on the draft right now and don't worry about images just yet. Take your time [[Help:Your first article|writing your first article]], make sure the topic is suitable for an article, and go through the [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]] process before worrying about media. That's usually the hard part. <u>After</u> you've got an article that's been moved out of userspace, you always can submit a request for [[:File:Extreme car driving simulator app icon.jpeg]] at [[Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion]], letting them know that the article it was uploaded for is now in mainspace. Hope it goes well! [[User:hinnk|hinnk]] ([[User talk:hinnk|talk]]) 04:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks @[[User:Hinnk|Hinnk]] <span style="background:#000000">[[User:BeastBoy-X|<span style="color:#00ff00">'''''⟨⟨BeastBoy-X'''''</span>]][[User talk:BeastBoy-X|<span style="color:#00ff00">'''''-Talk!⟩⟩'''''</span>]]</span> 00:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

== Use of a CC BY-NC 4.0 image in Wikipedia ==

https://www.inaturalist.org has images of animals, insects, etc with CC BY-NC 4.0 copyright.  Can I use such images in Wikipedia articles? [[User:Tagooty|Tagooty]] ([[User talk:Tagooty|talk]]) 09:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:Tagooty|Tagooty]] I'm afraid not. The NC (non commercial) element of the licence is not compatible with Wikipedia's image licensing policy. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 10:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Nthep}} Thanks [[User:Tagooty|Tagooty]] ([[User talk:Tagooty|talk]]) 10:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{u|Tagooty}}: Some of their images are actually freely licenced for us to use, such as [https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/526542035 this one]. The licence is seen near the top of the individual image page. [[User:Ww2censor|ww2censor]] ([[User talk:Ww2censor|talk]]) 12:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::{{Ping|ww2censor}} Useful to know, I'll look for images without restrictions. Thanks. [[User:Tagooty|Tagooty]] ([[User talk:Tagooty|talk]]) 13:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

== Seeking Advice on How (and where) to Upload a Photo ==

This is the first time I'm trying to upload a photo that will later be on a Wikipedia page. I'm working on the following 2 pages:

[[John Langeloth Loeb Sr.|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Langeloth_Loeb_Sr.]] (deceased)

[[John Langeloth Loeb Jr.|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Langeloth_Loeb_Jr.]] (living)

There is a photo on the web for each of these people, on the following links:

Sr (the photo below the header, on the right): https://www.hbs.edu/about/campus-and-culture/campus-built-on-philanthropy/loeb-house

Jr (the photo on the left, with arms crossed): [https://www.gwirf.org/ambassador-john-l-loeb-jr/ https://www.gwirf.org/ambassador-john-l-loeb-jr/]

- In these cases, do I download the photo from each of these URLs and then upload it?
- Do I upload (or reference) the photo to Wikimedia Commons or Wikipedia?
- How can I tell or verify what the copyright / licensing is for each of these photos?
- What type of copyright / licensing is necessary to upload and use photos for these pages?
- Note: I am consulting for the Loeb family and have a COI, so I know that I need to submit an Edit Request for updates to these pages. Do I need to do the same or similar to upload the photos?
- Any other advice or details of the steps to eventually add a photo to each of the pages above would be much appreciated.

[[User:Mybestwords|Mybestwords]] ([[User talk:Mybestwords|talk]]) 00:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Mybestwords}} Pretty much any photo you find online is going to be assumed to be protected by copyright under a license that's too restrictive for Wikipedia of Commons purposes unless its copyright holder clearly states otherwise. The copyright holder of a photo is generally considered to be the person who took it, and only that person, in principle, can release their photos under a copyright license that is [[:WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files|free-enough for Wikipedia's purposes]]. Everything else is going to be considered to be [[:WP:NFC|non-free content]]. Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type as explained in [[:c:COM:FAIR]]; so, anything you want to upload to Commons is going to clearly need to satisfy [[:c:COM:L]]. Wikipedia does allow non-free content to be uploaded, but only if it satisfies [[:WP:NFCC]]. The NFCC is quite restrictive and pretty much doesn't allow photos of a living person to be uploaded and used on Wikipedia; so, most likely any photo of [[:John Langeloth Loeb Jr.]] is going to need to be either one that's already within the [[:WP:PD|public domain]] (i.e., one that's no longer eligible for copyright protection for some reason or never was eligible for copyright protection) for it to be OK to use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does allow non-free photos of deceased persons to be used as long as the photo's use satisfies the NFCC, which is why there already is a non-free photo of [[:John Langeloth Loeb Sr.]] being used in that article. There's really no way to justify two non-free photos of Loeb Sr. in that article so bascially the best you could do is replace the current one used in the main infobox with the one found on the website you linked to above. Since this means the other image will end up being deleted, you may need to establish a [[:WP:CONSENSUS]] to replace the image if someone disagrees with you replacing it. You can propose replacing the image on the article's talk page if you want.{{pb}}Many photos found online (particularly older pre-Internet Era ones) typically came from somewhere/someone else; so, [[:c:COM:NETCOPYVIO|the person operating the website is not very likely to be the original copyright holder of the photo]]. Finding who is can be difficult when the website doesn't provide any information on the [[:provenance]] of the photo. You can try contacting whoever runs the website to see whether they can provide you with more information about the photo you're interested in. You can also try a [[reverse image search]] to see whether you can either find the origin source for the image yourself or another instance of it being used somewhere online or in print which provides more information about its provenance. Since you've stated you're working on behalf of the Loeb family, you might simply ask the family for a photo along the lines of [[:Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials]], [[:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission]] or maybe even [[:Wikipedia:A picture of you]]. Wikipedia is always going to prefer freely-licensed or public domain images over non-free ones; moreover, such images are better off uploaded to Commons because it makes them much easier for all Wikimedia Foundation projects to use. For information on how to upload images, take a look at [[:Wikipedia:Uploading images]] and [[:c:Commons:Upload]].  -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 04:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks very much for your detailed reply! I have been in touch with our client and it looks like they are trying to make some updates. [[User:Mybestwords|Mybestwords]] ([[User talk:Mybestwords|talk]]) 18:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Also, I don't know exactly how you're affiliated with this person, but depending how that is, ''you'' could photograph him. Then you would be the copyright holder of that photograph and could certainly choose to release it under a free license. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Mybestwords}} If {{tq|it looks like they are trying to make some updates}} means they're trying to upload images they are the copyright holder of, then great. They can upload the images to Commons themselves as long as they do so in accordance with [[:c:COM:L]]. On the other hand, if it means they're trying to upload images that someone else is the copyright holder of, they should get the copyright holder's [[:c:COM:CONSENT]] before uploading anything. Doing so will reduce the risk of the image being nominated for deletion, which sometimes happens can happen quite quickly if someone notices the image shortly after it has been uploaded. If, by chance, you mean they are intending to upload the image as non-free content, I wouldn't advise they do so because Wikipedia's non-free content policy is quite restrictive and a bit hard to understand even for experienced users. In that case, they might want to ask for someone else to do it for them at [[:WP:FFU]]. Finally, if what they're trying to do is not limited to images but also involves updating the text of articles, I suggest they don't try to do that at all. If that's really the case, you probably should explain [[:WP:COI]], [[:WP:NOT]], [[:WP:BLPSELF]] and [[:WP:OWN]] to them. You need to make sure they understand that even though there might be a Wikipedia article written about them (or someone related to them), they have pretty much zero editorial control over it. All content is going to be expected to be assessed in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not based on what they might want. There are means in place to help COI editors sort out any issues they might have with what's written about them on Wikipedia, and they should make use of them as much as possible because it will make things easier for them. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 21:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

== File:National Basketball Association logo.svg ==

I have a question regarding the copyrightablity of NBA "Jerry West" sihouette logo. Is there an evidence that the logo with "Jerry West" have registered by the [[U.S. Copyright Office]]? Because when i searched that logo at Copyright Office website, there's no evidence about NBA logo itself. Assuming that the logo was created in 1969, [[:File:National Basketball Association logo.svg]] may fall under (PD-US-No Notice) if there are no evidence about copyright registration of the logo, because prior to US entry to Berne Convention in 1989, it requires a work to have a copyright notice (©) when they register a work to US Copyright Office. For works created between prior to 1978 (specifically works created until 1977), if there's no copyright notice, a work may fall into public domain. [[Special:Contributions/103.111.102.118|103.111.102.118]] ([[User talk:103.111.102.118|talk]]) 05:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

== Promotional material scan ==

Hello.  I found an [https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DZBHekyV2/ image on Facebook], apparently a scan of a one-page promotional sheet (probably from the late 1970s) that shows some of the early history of the [[Meadowlands Sports Complex]].  I thought that might be a good add to the page.  Would it be appropriate to upload this image under the NFCI concept regarding other promotional material?  Thanks for the review. [[User:MikeUMA|MikeUMA]] ([[User talk:MikeUMA|talk]]) 21:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|MikeUMA}} I think it would probably hard to justify this under [[:WP:NFCCP]] per [[:WP:NFCC#8]] unless your intent is to use the file for primary identification purposes at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the promotional sheet itself, or you're able to find sourced critical commentary about the sheet that can be added to the article about Medowlands. Just adding the image to the history section (with perhaps just a caption or a brief mention in the section) would probably be assessed as [[:WP:DECORATIVE]] non-free use absent any sourced critical commentary about the sheet itself. The Facebook source could also be a problem per [[:WP:NFC#Meeting the previous publication criterion]] since that's unlikely going to be the original source of publication for the sheet; however, my guess is that it was almost certainly [[:c:COM:PUBLISH|published]] shortly after created (most likely in a print publication like a newspaper) so perhaps [[:WP:NFCC#4]] is not really a concern.{{pb}} You might try to find a better source for the sheet, though, because that could help sort out it's [[:provenance]] and allow a better assessment of its copyright status. You also might want to ask about this at [[:c:COM:VPC]] because there's a possibility that this could be something that already entered into the [[:WP:PD|public domain]] under US copyright law. Print advertisements (which this could be) and prmotional material were required by the US copyright law at the time to have visible copyright notices and other [[:copyright formalities]] taken care of for them to be considered "protected" by copyright. I can't see any copyright notice on that scan, but there could be something on the back or it could've been cropped out when uploaded to Facebook. If you can find a clean copy showing the same sheet as it looked when originally published, then that could help in assessing it's copyright status. If it meets the conditions for {{tlx|PD-US-no notice}}, it could be uploaded to Commons and treated as "free content" instead being uploaded locally to Wikipedia and treated as "non-free content". In that case, it wouldn't be supject to [[:WP:NFCC|Wikipedia's non-free content use policy]] and could be used in pretty much any article or on any page with needing to meet the NFCCP. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 22:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for taking the time to explain.  It's not that important to me to do the suggested background research, so I'll drop it. [[User:MikeUMA|MikeUMA]] ([[User talk:MikeUMA|talk]]) 01:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

== FOP and [[:File:Donald Driver Statue.jpg]] and [[:File:Original Dedication Plaque for the Receiver Statue.jpg]] ==

There is some confusion over whether [[:File:Donald Driver Statue.jpg]] and [[:File:Original Dedication Plaque for the Receiver Statue.jpg]] should be on the Commons because of no FOP for statues in the USA. I nominated both for deletion, but the file's creator argues they should be kept at the Commons, because there was no copyright notice filed within 5 years since the statue's publication (1985). However [[:File:Donald Driver Statue.jpg]] was apparently repainted and rededicated in 2013 after an NFL player. Additionally although the top of [[:Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#General_rules]] says "[a]nything published in or after 1978 but before March 1, 1989 with no copyright notice is in the public domain unless the work's copyright was registered within 5 years of the work's initial publication", [[:Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Artworks_and_sculptures]] does not mention 1978 to 1989 and says only "For public artwork installed between 1930 and 1977 inclusive, use <nowiki>{{PD-US-no notice}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{PD-US-not renewed}}</nowiki>." Any light, not heat? [[User:Therapyisgood|Therapyisgood]] ([[User talk:Therapyisgood|talk]]) 22:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)