Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

Media copyright questions
Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions. How to add a copyright tag to an existing image On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag: For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators". For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it. For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under an acceptable Creative Commons or other free license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{Cc-by-4.0}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}}) Hit Publish changes. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below. How to ask a question To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email. Note for those replying to posted questions If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.
Click here to start a new discussion

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Song lyrics translations

There is a dispute about the admissibility of translated song lyrics at a) Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and b) Es kam ein Herr zum Schlößli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The source for a) is https://stihi.ru/2024/08/29/5879, for b) it's https://stihi.ru/2018/08/15/9373 . My reading of the Copyright notices on those pages prevents their use at Wikipedia. I've raised the matter with the editor who placed those translations into the articles, User:Tamtam90 (who made several uncivil remarks in their edit summaries), on my talk page. They claim to be the author of those translations and they point to a different Copyright notice in the footnote of https://o.stihi.ru/ which doesn't cover Wikipedia's requirements either. That website has a page on "Certificate of publication" which doesn't address Creative Commons or GNU licenses at all. What's to be done? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The way that could make sense apparently would be if Tamtam90 is С. Павлов. If so, the user could provide evidence to VRT. The vague reference to a discussion on Wikidata is not linked. A search did not find something like that there. However, there is something on Wikisource [1]. Not sure why the person who spotted the problem seemed to leave it there. Notifying User:Vladis13: can you please bring some light on this matter? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

s:ru:User:Tamtam90 is С.Павлов. I put the pages of his translations up for deletion, because, obviously, on the https://stihi.ru there is no notice that this is a free license; on the contrary, it says that the rights are reserved by the author. There I explained this in detail to the user and recommended improving the license on the site by indicating CC-BY, and using the VRTS system to solve all problems. The user said that he sent a request to VRTS there. And also I made a remark to the user there.
Wikisource Rules allow to use a different way for translations created and published in Wikisource, so this automatically licensed under CC-BY. - Just need to indicate the user as author of the translation and setup the CC-BY license template. This is what was done, example. Vladis13 (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Tamtam90, I would advise in order to avoid the non-free license on the stihi.ru, to publish the english translation in en.Wikisource (s:en:Wikisource:Translations#Wikisource_original_translations). After, in en.Wikipedia to set the link to this translation in en.Wikisource. Vladis13 (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Vladis13, the only reason why I still haven't published my English translations in Wikisource is: there are only 5-10 of them. So, when you approve that my "continuing" translation wouldn't meet any further deletion nightmares, I will start to publish my works in en.wikisource.org (however, the link to stihi.ru must be saved in Wikisource, as I understood). --Tamtam90 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Не уверен, что понял ваш ответ, Google Translate переводит не идеально. Если вы указываете ссылку на stihi.ru, где нет свободной лицензии совместимой с Фондом Викимедия, то это вводит в заблуждение участников и вы получаете запросы на удаление. Именно поэтому я рекомендую разместить ваши переводы в Викитеке, где они будут под свободной лицензией. Я не имею отношения к en.wikisource. Нет никакого ограничения на количество публикуемых переводов. Vladis13 (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

For the benefit of non-Russian speakers, a Google translation: I'm not sure I understood your answer, Google Translate doesn't translate perfectly. If you link to stihi.ru, which doesn't have a free license compatible with the Wikimedia Foundation, it misleads participants and you get requests to remove it. That's why I recommend posting your translations on Wikisource, where they will be under a free license. I have nothing to do with en.wikisource. There is no limit on the number of translations you can publish. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• My ticket permission see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tamtam90. Is that enough, to recall these nominations? --Tamtam90 (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
• As for the two aforementioned songs, two links to Wikisource has been added to the pages, to their last section ("References" or "External links"). Is there any other reason, still to keep this nomination "open"?--Tamtam90 (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg

File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg has been used on a few pages now, two of which I've since reverted. It's been labeled as an "official" photo of the 119th United States Congress even though it hasn't yet been uploaded on Congress.gov or another official government website, since the 119th Congress has yet to start. It's only been uploaded on Representative-elect Hamadeh's newly-created "official" Twitter account, which leads me to believe that there may be an issue with copyright, and it might not yet be public domain (if it's the official photo in the end). AG202 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The file was uploaded to Commons so it would probably be better to ask about it at c:COM:VPC. Personally, though, this does seem like a case of "too soon" in an image licensing sense given that Hamadeh isn't officially a US congressman until they take their oath of office and formally assume their duties. Hamadeh could, if they want, simply agree to give their consent by posting they're releasing the image under one of these licenses on their X account or sending a c:COM:CONSENT email to Wikimedia VRT, but I don't think they or anyone else can claim {{PD-USGov-Congress}} just yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks and I've since started a thread on Commons. AG202 (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Too soon? He's a member-elect and members-elect take their official photos during the orientation during the lame duck session. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue is that it hasn't yet been published by House.gov. Does a congressperson, edit: congressperson-elect in particular, posting an image solely on social media count as public domain? Does it count as a work of the U.S. federal government? That's what led me to bring the topic here. AG202 (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The images are clearly taken by officials of the US Government so I would say yes and if a member posts it of their own volition I would say it qualifies. In fact if you look at Tim Sheehy's main picture you will see it comes from Ryan Zinke's Instagram page when they were at a campaign event together. We've also used images from freshmen before like when Cory Mills and Anna Paulina Luna posted theirs when they were first elected. There was no issue then and I don't see why there would be an issue now. Wollers14 (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Was the issue brought up then with Cory Millis and Anna Paulina Luna? If so, please point me to the relevant discussions. It's better to be safe than sorry, and I want to make sure that the policy is clear. Keep in mind as well that Abraham Hamadeh is not yet a congressperson, but a congressperson-elect, hence not yet officially a member of government. (Ryan Zinke was already a member at the time of posting) There's no harm in getting more information and/or at least waiting until the 119th Congress is sworn in. AG202 (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Not that I remember I just know that nobody took them down. Beth Van Duyne and Tony Gonzales also did the same in 2020 when they were first elected (I'm feeling old now) Also the account that Hamadeh used to post it was not his personal account but the account he will use when he officially gets sworn in which have the gray check marks if you use X. Wollers14 (talk) Wollers14 (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Nobody taking an image down doesn't necessarily mean it's licensed correctly. As I posted above and below, this is a file uploaded to Commons and whether it's OK as licensed or should be deleted is a question for Commons. However, whether the file should be used for encyclopedic purposes on Wikipedia is a question for Wikipedia. If the local consensus is that the file is OK per WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and has no WP:F9 or WP:F11 issues, then Wikipedia can probably continue using it. The file can still end up being deleted from Commons though. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

To help answer the earlier question about whether Commons had this discussion before the answer is actually yes and the image was kept. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anna_Paulina_Luna.jpg Wollers14 (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That's great, but again Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anna_Paulina_Luna.jpg something to point out at Commons if the file ends up at DR or tagged for speedy deletion. Whether the file should be removed is something that can be discussed on Wikipedia (i.e. WP:FFD), but whether it should be deleted is something that should be sorted out on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: the image was kept after the congresswoman was sworn in. It's not yet clear (and consensus was not clear either) what to do before a congressperson is sworn in. I'm trying to be as specific as possible for a reason. AG202 (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

See also: Commons deletion request for MTG "official photo" AG202 (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The Tim Sheehy image is a crop of a larger image of Sheehy and Ryan Zinke that is claimed to have been taken by a member of Zinke after he officially became a congressman. That's a completely different situation than what's being discussed here. It would be certainly fine for a crop of a similar image taken by of Hamadeh and someone else that is licensed as PD-USGov (i.e. taken by an employee of the federal government as part of their official duties) to be used. Such a photo wouldn't even need to be a photo of Hamadeh and another public official; it could be Hamadeh and anyone or anything. As for the other images, files generally don't really go through a vetting process before they're uploaded; so, anyone could upload an image to Commons, claim it's licensed as such and such, and nobody would verify whether that's the case before the file is uploaded. If there's a problem with a file's licensing, it's usually something pointed out later (sometimes much later). Anyway, if the photos were taken the orientation phase for new members by an federal employee as part of their official duties, then it should be fine. I'm assuming such a thing should be fairly easy to verify if it's something that happens every election cycle. Either way, the file was uploaded to Commons and it needs to sorted out there. Whether the file should be used in the article about Hamadeh is a question for local consensus to decide perhaps, but whether it should be deleted is something to resolve on Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

As an update for anyone reading, the Commons discussion has a user Wollers14 confirm with the House Creative Services via email that they took the photo. Hasn't been any update on if there should be anything done for the information that its by them or not for a template, but I think it should be fine to be used. reppop^talk 22:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I've added the image back to the pages. If there are any objections feel free to ping me on this discussion or the other one. Wollers14 (talk) 04:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

rights-managed license from Getty Images Entertainment

Hi- I want to upload an image of Alex Shapiro that's been licensed from Getty Images Entertainment and didn't know how to do so since it's not through Creative Commons or in the public domain. Photographer is Tommaso Boddi. Llk.grab.bag (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Llk.grab.bag: Sorry to not have better news but it looks like Tommaso Boddi is still alive so his work is copyright until 70 after his death. He would have to release the image under a free licence we accept for us to use such a photo. Besides which Alex Shapiro is also still alive, so a freely licenced image can be made by someone for our use. ww2censor (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Llk.grab.bag. In addition to what Ww2censor posted above, images from Getty and other commercial image rights agencies are petty much never allowed to be uploaded and used as non-free content per speedy deletion criterion F7 and item 7 of examples of unacceptable non-free image use because such a use is considered to almost always fail non-free content use criterion #2 unless the image itself (not the subject of the image) is the subject of sourced critical commentary in reliable sources. Given that Shapiro is living, any type of non-free image of them isn't, in principle, going to be allowed since it's reasonable to expect that someone could take their photo and release it under one of the free licenses OK for Wikipedia's purposes. Such a person could even be Shapiro themselves if they were to take a selfie or owns the rights to any other images taken of them by others. The person who takes a photo is pretty much considered to be the copyright holder of the photo; so, anyone who takes a photo of Shapiro is going to be considered its copyright holder unless they've transferred copyright ownerships to Shapiro. Given what's written about Shapiro in "Alex Shapiro", they probably have a pretty good understanding of image and media copyright, and might respond favorably if you were to try to contact them as explained in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to a request for a freely licensed image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all of this guidance! I actually have purchased a license from Getty-- does that change things? If it's still not possible to use, that's fine. Llk.grab.bag (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. A license from Getty is the opposite of what we need, which is clearly-stated permission for the use and re-use of that image (including commercial exploitation, modification, etc.) under one of the Creative Commons or analogous open-source licenses which permit such use. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this a sculpture or a rocket on a stand?

File:JFKRocket.JPG On that page the uploader says they took the photo and release all rights to it. But the question now is whether this is a sculpture or just a "rocket on a stand." Would freedom of panorama apply here? I know nothing about this beyond what is on the image's page. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Or is it a logo?[2] This version File:JFKRocketa.png also exists. Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Freedom_of_panorama I'm leaning that we can't have it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

if one fails FOP, they both fail FOP. Nthep (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yup. For context, it's from John F. Kennedy High School (Texas). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea when the rocket/sculpture was put up? Felix QW (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

1963 or later. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If it was erected before 1978 and does not bear a copyright notice, chances are it lost its copyright protection per c:Commons:Public art and copyright in the US. Felix QW (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If this [3] has any authority, before 1978 seems unlikely. 1988 at the earliest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If this was a working rocket put on a stand, there shouldn't be any copyright. The fact that the rocket is not used anymore should not change its copyright status. Now if it is copy, it might be different, although the difference between a real and a dummy one might be too low to cross the threshold of originality. Usually small scale models have a copyright. Yann (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion stalled. I moved this file to Commons. Yann (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

1915 image from Botswana

I'm looking to add this image to Seepapitso III: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eai7p5bXkAYKJeS?format=jpg. The photo was taken in 1915. I found it in The Birth of Botswana (1987) but can't find where they got it from or when it was first published. I also don't know the photographer. Is there any license I can upload it under? Or would it be non-free use? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Thebiguglyalien. Here are some things I think might apply to such an image.

1. If you can demonstrate the photo was published anywhere prior to January 1, 1929, it would likely be public domain under US copyright law as {{PD-US}} or {{PD-US-expired}}. The image sort of looks like a flyer or advertisement which means that it might be considered to be published if copies of it were distributed to others.
2. If you can figure out who took the photo and find out when they died, it could be {{PD-old-70}} even if first published in 1987 as long as the photo wasn't still under copyright protection as of the URAA date of the country of first publication. Per c:COM:Botswana, Botswana applies a 50 year p.m.a. which means it would need to be shown the author died before January 1, 1946.
3. If the image was first published in 1987, but the publication lacked a copyright notice and wasn't subsequently registered for copyright protection within five years of publication, the publication itself could be within the public domain per c:Template:PD-US-1978-1989 or {{PD-1996}}.
4. If you're unable find out 1, 2 or 3, most likely it's going to be treated as an unknown anonymous work which means it could be eligible for copyright protection for up to 120 years after creation or 95 years after first publication, whichever is lesser.

Of course, my assessment might be incorrect and others will probably correct me if it is. You could also ask about this at c:COM:VPC because that's probably where the image should be uploaded if it's PD.

As for whether the image can be used as non-free content, in principle, yes it could qualify as {{Non-free biog pic}} given that the subject is deceased, but meeting WP:FREER could be an issue because of when the subject died. Even if this particular image isn't PD, there might be another image capable of serving the same purpose encyclopedic purpose as this or any other non-free one that could be found and used instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I would think that this image should be fine. While the US concept of "publication" for old works is a little murky, the rule of thumb generally applied on Commons is that US law considered photographs to be published when they leave the confine of a commercial photographer and are passed to the client. This implies that studio portraits such as this one can almost always be assumed to have been published shortly after creation.

For Commons, there remains Botswanan copyright to consider. Since copyright lasts until 50 years after the death of the author, Commons permits that if we do not know the death dates of the author, we assume that they will not have lived more than fifty years after the work in question, allowing for this photo to be assumed PD in Botswana since 2016.

On Commons, this can all be condensed into the single license tag {{PD-old-assumed-expired|duration=50}}, Felix QW (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I've uploaded it at Commons:File:Seepapitso Bathoen Gaseitsiwe.jpg. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

"You Drive Me Crazy" album file usage

Hello. I noticed the album cover for the song "You Drive Me Crazy" was removed. I don't understand the reason for this, because the file I used (T-ara Breaking Heart Repackage.jpg) is already used on the main album's page (Absolute First Album). This is a single from the album. I didn't realize there's a problem with the file since it has been there for year. RWikiED20 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi RWikiED20. Each use of non-free content requires two things: a non-free copyright license and a non-free use rationale. In almost all cases, one copyright license is all that's needed regardless of how many times a file is being used, but a separate, specific non-free use rationale is needed for each use because not all non-free uses are equivalent. The bot that removed the file included a link to WP:NFC#Implementation in it's edit summary because it couldn't find a non-free use rationale for the file's use in article about the song; it found one for the article about the album, but not one about the song. If a rationale for this use is added to the file's page, the bot will stop removing the file. However, just adding a rationale doesn't necessarily mean everything is OK. Non-free album cover art is pretty much never allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in articles about songs just for the sake of it, but cover art specifically for the song itself can be used. So, if you can establish that the cover art you want to use is the official cover art for the song, things should be OK; if not, the file shouldn't be used in that article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Ok, thank you! RWikiED20 (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

how to tag a sound file from WhatsApp

File:Gǃo'e_ǃHu.ogg was posted online by an astronomer who wanted to provide the pronunciation of a moon he had named after a Juǀʼhoan mythological figure. He contacted an anthropologist who worked with a Juǀʼhoan literacy group, and one of them pronounced the name for her over WhatsApp. It was intended for free distribution and no-one claims copyright. The Juǀʼhoan doesn't have an email acct, much less one that would correspond to the astronomer's website. Can the anthropologist who solicited the pronunciation send the astronomer permission for use, for him to forward to wikimedia? Does pronouncing a single word even amount to something that could be copyrighted? — kwami (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Bleach Box Set 1.png

File:Bleach Box Set 1.png was tagged for deletion due to WP:FREER (3D part). If I am not mistaken, the problem is because it is the photo of a box set (3D image) instead of being directly the cover of the box set (2D image), isn't it? That being the case, what is the difference between this and the images of music artists box sets such as File:Genesis83-98boxset.jpg, File:Genesis76-82boxset.jpg, File:The Beatles Box Set.jpg, File:RadioheadBoxSet.jpg, File:Peel.Slowly.and.See.albumcover.jpg, or File:5albumstudioset.jpg? Or is there another issue? Xexerss (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

In the case of box set art, usually the company publishing the set is the one that designed the set, and while they may be using additional copyrighted art, they still have licensing and a vested interest in the copyright of the art on the box. Even if an editor took a photo of the box and made that photo free, it would stil be a derivative work of the box art and be copyright burdened. As such, this is basically saying the box art copyright and the promotional photograph are essentially the same copyright, and thus theres no FREER option. — Masem (t) 13:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Masem: I see. Well, the box set images I uploaded were already deleted anyway, but @Iruka13 indicated to me at my talk page that they were not allowed. I decided to heed it, but now that I read this it means that there was no problem with them, right? edit: reading the user's talk page, it seems that several editors have questioned their interpretation of image usage guidelines and policies. The Bleach box set image was obtained from here. Xexerss (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that photo is that there are essentially two copyrights involved with it: one for the box set cover art and one for the photo. This means that that it would technically be more non-free (if that makes sense) than a straight-on photo/scan of one side of the box. This might not be a big deal if the copyright holder of the box set cover art and the photo are the same, but someone could, in principle, take a similar photo and release it in under a license free enough to satisfy Wikipedia's general licensing. Even in that case, the entire file would still need to be treated as non-free since it's a photograph of someone else's copyrighted work, but the photo itself would actually be freer since it's released under a copyright license that's less encumbered by copyirght restrictions than a photo licensed as "all right reserved". This is one of the reasons that slavish-reproductions (simple/mechanical/true recreations of someone else's copyrighted work) tend to be preferred for cover art because simple 2D photos, scans or other reproductionss are typically not considered to involve enough creative input to establish a new copyright for the photo that's separate from the copyright of what's being photographed under US copyright law. I can't speak for Iruka13, but I think this is what they might've been getting at regarding with this particular photo and with the ones of the bibles discussed in the thread below.

It might help if you think of it this way: you go to the library, take a book off the shelf and photocopy one if it's pages; you might've have created something tangible, but there's pretty much no creative input involve, which means there's no copyright established for the physical photocopy you made even though whatever you photocopied could still be under its own copyright protection. If, however, you took whatever was on that page and incorporated someway into some other work in which you provided a significant degree of creative input (i.e. a WP:Derivative work), then a new copyright separate from the copyright of the original work is going to be created for your "new" work. In principle, the act of taking a photo, especially of anything with some 3D aspects to it, is considered to involve enough creativity to warrant copyright protection for the photo itself separate of whatever is being photographed. From a WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 standpoint, the typical reader of the article probably doesn't gain a significant improvement in encyclopedic understanding from seeing a 3D image of the box set compared with seeing just a 2D image of the box set's primary face to justify using the 3D photo, and any information lost from not seeing the 3D image is unlikely going to significantly affect the said reader's understanding of what's written about the box set in the article. A 3D image, even one showing the contents of the set, might look good on a website trying to sell the box set, but that's not really what Wikipedia is about or what it needs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I understand better now. Thank you for the thorough explanation. Xexerss (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Revised New Jerusalem Bible image question

Hi,

I uploaded an image to serve as the image for the Revised New Jerusalem Bible article (with the understanding that the predecessor be automatically deleted after some time for being orphaned). Soon after my uploading it and adding it, it was tagged, disputing the non-free use rationale. WP:FREER was linked to and the '3D part' was mentioned in brackets as the concern.

The text mentions that 'a photograph of a copyrighted 3D work of art will also carry the copyright of the photographer in addition to the copyright of the artist that created the work', but it links to 3D computer graphics. I assume it also applies to photographs of books (which are 3D), though.

Why are New King James Version⁽¹⁾, English Standard Version⁽²⁾, New International Version⁽³⁾ and Christian Standard Bible⁽⁴⁾ allowed photographs of their bible covers (from the publishers), but in this case it is up for deletion?

1, 2, 3, 4.

Bojo Skankins (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bojo Skankins, I've removed the notice which was put on by a user who didn't seem to understand non-free use. The rationale seems fine to me. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Bojo Skankins (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: I find Iruka13, who tagged the file for speedy deletion, to be pretty experienced when it comes to file licensing so I don't see how their tagging of this file was being disruptive; in fact, the reason they did so does (in my opinion) have some merit and probably would've been something worth discussing at WP:FFD instead. Non-free book cover art is allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and generally straight-on photographs of book cover are no problem because the photo itself isn't something considered to be separately eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:2D copying. The reasons straight-on photos tend to be preferred is because a photo with 3D elements adds another degree of non-freeness to the overall image due to the non-free nature of the photo since the photo is considered a WP:Derivative work, whereas with a straight-on photo avoids such concerns. There's also very little encyclopedic value added from showing the spine of the book to readers since pretty much all they need to know can be found on the cover. In this case, if the bible's publisher also took the photo uploaded by the OP, it could perhaps be argued that it's OK since the copyright holder of the photo and book cover are the same, but someone (including the uploader Bojo Skankins) could've just as easily uploaded a straight-on shot of the photo to use instead, and that's why I think Iruka13 tagged the file for speedy deletion. As for the other photos mentioned above by the OP, the fact they they exist doesn't mean they should exist, and there could be WP:FREER issues associated with them for very reason that the photos themselves are non-free. If the book covers are too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, which might be the case, than a non-free photo of them wouldn't meet FREER because anyone could take a straight-on photo that also wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection. This is one of the reasons by arguing WP:OTHERIMAGE, like the OP seems to be doing, is often not a good thing because there can be subtle differences between images that's aren't immediately apparent. So, if the reason, you blocked Iruka13 was blocked is solely based on the above and some of the other images they recently tagged for speedy deletion, then I think the block was a mistake. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC); post edited -- 09:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Marchjuly, I believe Iruka13 was blocked for a week for his approach to interacting with other users over his tagging. I don't understand why Iruka13 persists on tagging without explanation of what they find wrong. FREER issues are different from his "invalid fair use claim", when the fair use claim seems fine. This book has art on its dust jacket, so any image is going to be non-free. When I first saw this I was going to suggest using an image of the front of the book without dust jacket, since most bible covers are just text, but this one has embossed patterns. I don't think the editor is just arguing from OTHERIMAGE, but is looking for an explanation. This noticeboard doesn't seem to give responses very rapidly. I understand what you are saying about the type of photo, and to reduce the reliance from fair use of two copyrights to fair use of one. I will replace the deletion tag.

Bojo Skankins, it is certainly possible to find a face-on image of the front of the book. The other inages that you used as examples are of books which have only text on the cover, or text only on the spine. The only copyright involved is the copyright of the photographer of the 3D image. This image has two copyrights involved, so needs to be replaced with one that is WP:FREER. Upload an image of the front of the book with the same free-use rationale. Thanks to to Marchjuly for explaining all this. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: The US copyright law concept of fair use and Wikipedia's concept of non-free content aren't exactly one and the same, and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was intentionally set up to be more restrictive than fair use. Iruka13's tagging of the file simply stated "disputed non-free use rationale"; it made no mention of it being a violation of fair use that I can see. A violation of FREER (WP:NFCC#1) is a violation of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, and a violation of FREER means the non-free use rationale for that particular use would be invalid; neither of those two things have anything to do with fair use per se. Something can be violation of Wikipedia policy and still be fine as fair use; similarly not everything that satisfies fair use automatically meets Wikipedia non-free content use policy as explained in WP:ITSFAIRUSE. The notification Irula13 added to the uploader's user talk page was just a boilerplate notification, which is recommended practice; so, that doesn't seem like an inappropriate interaction (at least with this particular uploader). Anyway, if the uploader disagrees with the tagging, they could use the file's talk page to explain why; administrators who review these types of deletion almost always check the file's talk page to see whether the tagging is being disputed. Finally, the other photos aren't necessary free of FREER issues because of what's shown in the photograph; the photos themselves are likely eligible for copyright protection because of the 3D aspects separate from the photographed works. There's no need for a non-free photo of a PD book cover because any anyone can take a straight-on photo of or scan the same cover and upload that instead; in other words, there's no justification for non-free use just because the photo is non-free. A slavish reproduction of any of a public domain work isn't something that typically is considered creative enough to establish a new copyright for the reproduction, and such works could be uploaded to Commons with a PD license (e.g. c:Template:PD-text logo) for the photographed work and a wrapper license like c:Template:PD-scan for the scan/photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

​ @Bojo Skankins: You also uploaded File:Revised New Jerusalem Bible Study Edition front cover.webp in October and it was being used in the article until you replaced it with File:Revised New Jerusalem Bible Study Edition.jpg, i.e. the file you asked about above. The first file seems fine for Wikipedia non-free content use purposes and it's unclear why you thought the second file was needed. Is there some difference in the cover art design or some other reason why you felt the second file should be used instead? The file you uploaded in October was used to replace File:RevisedNewJerusalemBible.jpg. That file was subsequently deleted by an administrator named Explicit, and I can't see it because I'm not an administrator. Do you remember why you felt it needed to be replaced? Was it a different cover altogether? The edit summary you left when replacing file stated "image of cover of full bible seems more appropriate". Could you clarify what you meant by that? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is a bit unclear.

I know I'm being asked a question directly, but I'm going to address all the points I wanted to reply to, in this reply, and then I'm going to answer the question.

"In this case, if the bible's publisher also took the photo uploaded by the OP, it could perhaps be argued that it's OK since the copyright holder of the photo and book cover are the same"

The photo came from a website operated by the publisher, so it seems logical to assume that the copyright is owned by the publisher. The possibility of another copyright on the photo I did not consider, but the website doesn't indicate it anywhere, and the unquestioned existence of other such photos on Wikipedia used for similar articles (as linked to in my original post) made me not concerned about it by default.

If I had to guess, I would assume that the publisher took the photo, or owns the copyright for it, given they reproduce it on their website without attribution. On archive.org (much of the site is not visible now), I can see that there was a copyright notice at the bottom of the site, which doesn't mention anyone other than the publisher, which gives the impression that all the content belongs to the publisher solely.

"The other inages that you used as examples are of books which have only text on the cover, or text only on the spine."

They also have logos, as well as text, which presumably are copyrighted.

It's not clear to me why having only text on the spine or only text on the cover makes a difference, when both spine and cover are visible, or in the one case where the printing on the spine is not clearly visible there is both the title and a logo on the cover.

Can the font of the title not be copyrighted? And are not the designs of the covers in general copyrighted?

"This is one of the reasons by arguing WP:OTHERIMAGE, like the OP seems to be doing, is often not a good thing because there can be subtle differences between images that's aren't immediately apparent."

If there are then I would like to know them.

"I don't think the editor is just arguing from OTHERIMAGE, but is looking for an explanation."

Correct. Three of those images (which I would describe as being taken from an angle) were uploaded in 2021 and one of them (which I would describe as being face-on, but with the spine visible) was uploaded in 2016. Given those photos have been up for so long, and mine was tagged almost immediately, it felt pertinent to ask it.

If it doesn't serve as a means to bolster my argument, it serves as a means to point out other images that might need to be tagged. Consistency is what I'm after (and fairness).

It's also educational.

"Finally, the other photos aren't necessary free of FREER issues because of what's shown in the photograph; the photos themselves are likely eligible for copyright protection because of the 3D aspects separate from the photographed works."

Then this needs to be looked into.

Finally: answers to the direct questions in the post I am replying to.

"​ @Bojo Skankins: You also uploaded File:Revised New Jerusalem Bible Study Edition front cover.webp in October and it was being used in the article until you replaced it with File:Revised New Jerusalem Bible Study Edition.jpg, i.e. the file you asked about above. The first file seems fine for Wikipedia non-free content use purposes and it's unclear why you thought the second file was needed. Is there some difference in the cover art design or some other reason why you felt the second file should be used instead?"

I wanted an image of the original edition to be the image for the article, as stated in my edit summary. Since the article mentions the original publisher so much (and the new publisher is presumably someone who has just bought the rights, presumably without any significant creative input, and presumably without any longstanding relationship with the translator, which the original publisher had), it seems appropriate. The DLT logo is visible on the spine. In general, it's a good photo. There is a subtle difference in cover design (placement of fishes), although I can't tell if this is a variation that existed before or something instituted by the new publisher. The tone of the blue is slightly lighter in the image from the new publisher (the image I replaced). Minor, but difference(s) nonetheless. Given I knew my first upload would be deleted automatically after a time (and given the precedent set by other articles with long-standing photos of bibles), it seemed harmless (and, if there's no additional copyright on the photo, I would argue it continues to be so and would continue to question the tagging).

"The file you uploaded in October was used to replace File:RevisedNewJerusalemBible.jpg. That file was subsequently deleted by an administrator named Explicit, and I can't see it because I'm not an administrator. Do you remember why you felt it needed to be replaced? Was it a different cover altogether? The edit summary you left when replacing file stated "image of cover of full bible seems more appropriate". Could you clarify what you meant by that? --"

The first file, RevisedNewJerusalemBible.jpg, was an image of the cover of the New Testament & Psalms edition, which was released in 2018 before the release of the full bible, and was serving as the image for the article. I changed it to an image of the cover of the full bible, hence my edit summary "image of cover of full bible seems more appropriate" (because the article is not just about the New Testament & Psalms, but the bible in its entirety). Once I changed the image used for the article, the first file was no longer in use in any articles, and was subsequently deleted (eventually, after a pre-determined time period - I believe it was tagged automatically for being orphaned). Bojo Skankins (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bojo Skankins, Since titles of books are copyrightable I was trying to come up with an explanation of the difference between your images and the other examples that made sense. But my explanation actually doesn't make sense. Marchjuly is the one who understands the complexity of this area. Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images has a guide to adding book cover images to articles, but its focus is on images of the front of the book. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bojo Skankins: Thank you for clarifying some things in your last post. I'll take a shot at responding to your questions. I apologize in advance if I end up posting things you already know. I also tend to use "you" as a collective pronoun quite a bit and when I do I may not be specifically referring to you as an individual, but Wikipedia users in general.

First of all, files are pretty much like any other page when it comes to Wikipedia in that editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD when uploading them; in other words, there's no vetting of files before they go live and Wp:AGF is going to be assumed (at least at first) in that the uploader is familiar enough with relevant Wikipedia policies and image licensing in general to do things correctly. What this means is a file existing so to speak doesn't necessarily mean it should exist or that it's licensed or being used in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies. This is perhaps the main reason why "other stuff exists" types of arguments are hard to make when it comes to arguing that individual files should be kept much in the same way as they're hard to make with respect to keeping articles or keeping article content. The fact that a file exist, even for quite some time, could just be an indication that nobody noticed it until now. New uploaded files or new revisions of files eventually show up in Special:NewFiles, and those who work in the file namespace often work off that page. It's possible that the person who tagged the file you uploaded found the file that way, but they could've just came across it through random link clicking. Regardless of how they found the file, their concerns pertain to that particular file per se and it's that file which need to be assessed based upon whether it meets relevant policy, much in the same way an article nominated for deletion is assessed on whether it meets relevant policy. The existence of other similar things doesn't necessarily mean those things should exist or that things similar to them should exist. This might seem unfair or inconsistent perhaps, but it's pretty much how much of Wikipedia works and has always worked when it comes to determining whether something should be kept or deleted.

Works aren't automatically eligible for copyright protection just because someone created them, but rather copyright eligibility depends on how much creatively was involved in creating them. Most countries apply a threshold of originality (TOO) when assessing whether something is creative enough to warrant copyright protection, but this threshold can very quite a lot from country to country because copyright laws in general can vary quite a lot from country to country. Since English Wikipedia's servers are located in the US, it tends to follow US copyright law and the US's TOO when assessing the copyright status of a work. English Wikipedia files are local files and can only be used on English Wikipedia and thus only US copyright law need be considered. Since the US's TOO is comparatively high than the TOO of some other countries (e.g. the UK), logos that might be considered too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection on one countries copyright laws, could be considered too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law. Such logos might not be OK to be uploaded to Commons under a license like Template:PD-logo since Commons (which is a global whose files can be used by all WMF projects) also takes into account the copyright laws of the country of first publication, but could be fine under a license like Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on English Wikipedia. This is the kind of thing I was trying to get at when I mentioned there could be subtle differences between two files which at first glance seem quite similar and are being used in the same way. Lots of users upload files (album covers, book covers, logos,etc.) as non-free content simply because they think that's what they need to do or to err on the side of caution. There's nothing wrong with this per se, but it's not necessary in some cases since the work in question might be within the public domain for one reason or another.

The copyright laws of most countries consider the taking of a photo by a person to involve enough creative input to establish a copyright for the photo that is separate from whatever is being photographed. So, even though the sky is something not considered to be eligible for copyright protection, someone's photo of the sky would be. This means that whenever you photograph someone else's work, you could be creating a WP:Derivative work in which there are multiple copyrights that need to be considered. So, a photo of a book cover could have two copyright to take into account: one for the photo and one for the book cover. For this reason, particularly when it comes to non-free content, straight-on photos of book cover art is preferable because such photos are considered to be slavish reproductions which aren't considered creative enough under US copyright law to establish a new copyright for the photo; so, only the copyright of the book cover needs to be assessed. If the photographed book cover is either too old to be still eligible for copyright protection or too simple too ever have been eligible for copyright protection, neither it nor any slavish reproduction of it would really need to be treated as non-free content and could be relicensed as pubic domain instead. A photo of a book cover which includes some 3D elements to it would still need to be treated as non-free just for the photo itself; this, however, wouldn't meet Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #1 since some could create a slavish reproduction of the same cover unencumbered by copyright restriction and use that instead. This is one of the reasons while I'm not sure the other bible images mentioned above are OK per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If the covers of those bibles are considered to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, then there's really no way to justify any non-free photos of the same bible covers.

The book cover you uploaded does seem rather complex or at least complex enough to warrant copyright protection under US copyright law; so, it probably needs to be treated as non-free content. The question then is whether the photo showing a 3D view of the book adds another degree of non-freeness that makes it less preferable to a straight-on photo of the books cover. Both photos would be non-free so to speak but the straight-on photo might be considered less non-free than the other, and it might be preferred for that reason alone. Figuring this out is something that might require more input from the Wikipedia community as a whole via discussion at WP:FFD.

Finally, if you don't agree with what I've posted above, you can challenge the speedy deletion tagging of the file by following the instructions given in the template that was added to the file's page and explaining why you feel the file should be kept on its talk page. The administrator who reviews the tag should check the file's talk page to see if anyone has contested the deletion. The administrator could, based on what's posted on the file's talk page, decide that further discussion is needed or they could still decide the file should be deleted. In the former case, the administrator themselves might start a discussion about the file at FFD or make mention that such a discussion is needed in the edit summary they leave when declining the speedy deletion tag. In the latter case, the deletion of the file could still be challenged per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE and the administrator could be asked to restore the file so that it can be further discussed at FFD. So, even if the file ends up deleted, the deletion can still be challenged if you think it was inappropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

From an NFC POV, all those existing covers are inappropriate uses of copyrighted images. The 2D cover of each of those existing works are too simple to qualify for copyright so a non-3D image of their cover is the most FREER option. No new information is gained by having the spine of the book also in shot. Alternatively, because all the books lack copyrightable designs, a WP editor's own photograph, published under a free license, could also work.
The New Jeruselum cover is copyrightable, but again per FREER, a simple 2D shot of the cover (no spine required) will be less copyright burdened than the 3d photo. — Masem (t) 13:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtroom sketch art of federal court cases.

Does courtroom sketch art for federal (i.e. Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Courts, U.S. District Courts) fall underneath the public domain? While would be works published during official governmental proceedings, I am unaware whether or not someone like the Supreme Court's courtroom sketch artist would be considered to be a governmental employee and their work subsequently available for use. 24.155.0.146 (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess it would entirely depend, as you yourself bring up, on whether the artist is considered to be an employee of the US federal government and were working in that capacity when creating the sketch. If they are, then I don't see any real difference between them and say another federal employee taking official photos. I found this CNN article from April 2024 about two such sketch artists and it describes them as "independent" and "freelancers" who seem to work for various other organizations/companies and not the federal government. Perhaps there are others besides the two mentioned by CNN, which means you might have to assume such sketches are copyrighted and then work backwards to figure who drew them and whether they were a federal employee when they did, or did so as some type of work for hire arrangement. Some older sketches created prior to March 1, 1989, might be public domain for other reasons though depending upon whether they had a copyright notice or their copyright formalities were taken care of, but anything after that date probably should be assumed to be copyrighted until it can be clearly shown otherwise. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The Supreme Court and other courts don't have sketch artists. Any sketches you see in newspaper, online, on TV, etc. are done by artists employed by various news-gathering organizations; they are not government documents and thus don't fall under any copyright exceptions, any more than photos taken by newspaper photographers, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

WDMacMillan1920.jpg still non-free?

Hi all The file:WDMacMillan1920.jpg is non-free according to its categories. I would like to use it in the German Wikipedia. The person shown on this pitcure died in 1948 which is more than 70 years ago. Is it possible to change the license to public domain? Kind regards, FerdiBf (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@FerdiBf the problem is that we don't know when it was first published and that's the date that starts the clock ticking for US copyright duration. I accept what the rationale says that it's probably the 1920s and therefore it's very likely that it is now out of copyright. Whether that is enough for de.wp or Commons you'd have to ask there. Nthep (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. FerdiBf (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

List of political parties in the United States has an RfC

List of political parties in the United States has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

The question is, "Should unofficial United States political party disc logos (a party’s logo or a symbol associated with the party in a circle) be used?" There are issues of copyright and best practices for logos. Safrolic (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC has been withdrawn. PAG-noncompliant images have been removed. Thank you! Safrolic (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Map used at Template:Syrian civil war infobox

File:Syrian Civil War map (ISW-CTP).svg (from Commons)

This file is described as own work based on this image produced by the combined ISW-CTP team and is copyright protected. It shows areas of Syria controlled by various groups/factions. My understanding of copyright is that the intellectual property protected by copyright in the base image is the outline of the areas controlled (an overlay on the basic map). My further understanding is that minor changes such as varying the colours used in the map, and the addition or removal of features from the basic map do not change/dissolve the copyright. Also, reproducing this outline (ie as an overlay) on a third-party open source map, whether or not it uses the original colours, is also an infringement of copyright.

If my understanding is correct the map could only be used under fair use criteria. The map is used in more than one place on En Wiki.

My question goes to whether the map can be used at all, under what conditions and what should be done about the present situation. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Given that the file was uploaded to Commons, it's issues will need to be resolved over at Commons. So, if you feel the file is a copyright violations in some way, you could tagged it for speedy deletion per c:COM:CSD or you could nominate it for deletion per c:COM:DR. I would only suggest speedy deletion if you feel the map is clearly a copyright violation per c:COM:CB#Maps and satellite imagery, but the copyright status of maps can be tricky and might be better to go the DR route in this case. If you want other opinions on this, it would probably be better to ask at c:COM:VPC because Commons and Wikipedia are technically separate projects with their own policies and guidelines. So, even though there's lots of overlapping, there are also some important differences. As to whether this could be treated as non-free content, that would depend on WP:FREER and whether a free equivalent map could be created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as this or any other non-free map. In general. maps this showing outlines of countries seem to be too simple for copyright protection under US copyright law, but what the map "shows" and "how it shows it" could involve creative input that is a copyright eligible element. If someone could use essentially the same data (care needs to be taken because some data sets can be separately copyrighted depending upon how they're sampled or obtained) or similar data ineligible for copyright protection to create a similar map and then release that map under a free license, I think that would be OK for Wikipedia's purposes and make using any non-free map fail WP:NFCC#1. That, however, only matters if it turns out that Commons needs to delete the ISW-CTP file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cinderella157 I'm not really adept concerning the problems of copyright, though main rationale for the ISW sourcing was that it was also the main sourcing for the Russian invasion of Ukraine Map is also primarily sourced from ISW. So I would assume that it could be applied the same way here. Kaliper1 (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Does File:Diab al-Mashi.png fail WP:NFCI #10?

This is a reduced-resolution still from a 44-minute Syrian documentary film from 2004. There are very few photos of this article’s subject, who was a politician in the now fallen Syrian Arab Republic, and this film still is the only one of certain authorship besides press agency photos (which are presumed to fail the NFCI). The filmmaker died in 2011 with no children or spouse. There is no public-facing estate for the filmmaker’s work. Do I need to try and track down the copyright, ask for a free use license, and be turned down before the photo meets WP:NFCI? It’s being suggested at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_December_12 that this would be necessary for the photo to meet fair use criteria. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

There being only few photos of the subject isn't in and or itself really a good justification for non-free use in my opinion; however, that in combination with the subject being deceased could be a good argument in favor of non-free use. It's not automatic, but it does make a stronger case. Finally, given that this file is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 December 12#File:Diab al-Mashi.png, there really nothing to gain by opening a new discussion about it here. In fact, doing so just runs the risk of splitting the discussion and confusing things. The best thing to do is to keep discussing the file at FFD because that's where a consensus regarding it will be established. Using {{Please see}} to notify others of the FFD discussion is fine, but it's not really a good to discuss anything else anywhere other than FFD now that the file is there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Add information on File:Barney Barney's World.png

I need help adding information on this image that I uploaded. Can you please help me out? Thanks! One-Winged Devil (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@One-Winged Devil: The image had to have come from somewhere and the source of the image (preferably a link if possible) of where it came from should be added to |source= parameter of the non-free use rationale. FWIW, I don't think this file's non-free use can be justified even if you sort out its source information. Non-free images of fictional characters such as this can be uploaded and used, but usually only when they're used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the character itself; using such images to illustrate individual sections in "List of ... characters" types of articles generally isn't considered compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy per WP:NFLISTS. In other words, such an image would probably be fine used in a stand-alone article about "Barney" the character, but not really OK to use in a more general list article. For this reason, I think you're going to have quite a hard time establishing a consensus to justify the non-free use of the file in that particular article if it ends up being discussed at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)