Wikipedia:Media copyright questions: Difference between revisions

 

Line 154: Line 154:

:: I do not maintain a watchlist on en-wiki, so if someone wants me to reply further, then please ping. – [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

:: I do not maintain a watchlist on en-wiki, so if someone wants me to reply further, then please ping. – [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

:::Having reviewed the history with SecretName101 on Commons, I concur with my dual-admin colleagues Pi.1415926535 and Jmabel. I can say that SecretName101 has a pathway to regaining {{his|SecretName101}} ability to upload files on Commons by cleaning up {{their|SecretName101}} historic mess. {{ucfirst:{{They have|SecretName101}}}} chosen not to do that and to upload here instead. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

:::Having reviewed the history with SecretName101 on Commons, I concur with my dual-admin colleagues Pi.1415926535 and Jmabel. I can say that SecretName101 has a pathway to regaining {{his|SecretName101}} ability to upload files on Commons by cleaning up {{their|SecretName101}} historic mess. {{ucfirst:{{They have|SecretName101}}}} chosen not to do that and to upload here instead. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

:::@[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]]: Just to be clear: what exactly do you point to as that the state is doing that: So, far what we appear to have is files with explicit claims of copyright on them. which would be how the state dealt with having the copyright in someone else. saying the copyright is in someone else. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 11:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

:::@[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]]: Just to be clear: what exactly do you point to as that the state is doing that: So, far what we appear to have is files with explicit claims of copyright on them which would be how the state dealt with having the copyright in someone else saying the copyright is in someone else. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 11:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Centralized discussion place in English Wikipedia

Archives

This page serves as a portal for Yearly archives, inside the archives are in month format, please see the Archives in the sidebox. Thanks.

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I am hoping for additional input on a discussion at Talk:William Grant Broughton#Coat of arms. I have nominated this article for GA and want to ensure that there are no image copyright issues that might become an issue during the GA review. @Bahnfrend has added File:Coat of arms of William Broughton (bishop).jpg back to the infobox and feels that the image, which is currently locally uploaded as non-free, both complies with the WP:NFCC and that its copyright has likely expired. I’m a bit doubtful that either the PD argument or the NFUR hold up.

This image is taken from http://www.sydneyanglicanarchives.com.au/past_archbishops.html. My reading of c:COM:Coats of arms would suggest that the image is probably not PD, as there is no indication that this specific rendering of the coat of arms is old enough for its copyright to have expired, and it contains specific creative choices (e.g. the design of the crown) that probably place this particular rendering above the TOO. Assuming then that it’s under copyright, my view is that it probably fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. The current NFUR claims that the image is there “to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the person in question”, which is clearly not the case given that the article already contains a portrait of Broughton. The article also already contains a free image of the coat of arms, File:St James’ Church, Sydney – the Broughton window.JPG, which makes me doubtful that a non-free image of the coat of arms is compliant with the NFCC.

Would appreciate if someone who is more familiar with image copyrights could weigh in on whether my reasoning here is correct. Thank you! MCE89 (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89: As pointed out in c:COM:COA, there are basically two parts to a COA: the blazon (written description) and the emblazon (visual representation of said blazon). A blazon pretty much tends to be nothing but text that describes (explains) the elements of the COA and, thus, is almost never considered to be eligible for copyright protection; the emblazon, on the other hand, is someone’s visual depiction of the blazon and can be eligible for copyright protection depending on the amount of creativity/complexity involved. There can be many different emblazons of the same blazon created by different people. Some emblazons might be more accurate than others perhaps, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with copyright status per se and more to do with the skill of the creator.My understanding of Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy and COAs is that a freely-licensed emblazon is, in principle, almost always considered possible per WP:FREER because someone skilled enough at such things could create a reasonably accurate alternative to anything that might need to be treated as non-free and release their work under a free enough license for Wikipedia’s purposes. Some of the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology are really good at doing this type of things and most likely could do the same for the Broughton COA since it’s not very complex. Unlike a corporate, team or other type of logo perhaps where a clear official version of the logo exists and an original interpretation of the official version is likely to be seen as misleading if too different or simply a slavish reproduction if basically nothing more than a mechanical reproduction. My guess is that someone could probably create an accurate free emblazon of this close to 200-year-old COA that is good enough for Wikipedia’s purposes. Wikipedia’s policy doesn’t require us to use the particular emblazon found on the website given as the source provided for the Broughton COA file, especially since it’s basically just someone’s (recent) interpretation of the COA of a bishop who died in 1853. I personally wouldn’t say that particular emblazon is any more official, for example, than the one shown in the stainglass window you mentioned above. Most likely the website version is based on some other older emblazon created by someone else, perhaps even the one shown in the stainglass window. So, if such a thing ended up being discussed at WP:FFD, I think it would be pretty hard to argue that this particular non-free version needed to be used instead of an existing free equivalent version simply because it was more “official” than the other.FWIW, an emblazon could be in the public domain if it’s too simple to be eligible for copyright protection (TOO) or too old to still be eligible for copyright protection, but copyright laws vary from country to country, which can make assessing whether something is “too simple” a bit tricky sometimes. It’s possible that an emblazon wouldn’t be complex enough under US copyright law to be eligible for copyright protection but might be complex enough to be eligible for said protection under the copyright laws of the country of first publication. Since Commons requires the content it hosts to be within the public domain in both the US and country of first publication, such an emblazon wouldn’t be OK for Commons, but it would be OK to upload locally to English Wikipedia as sort of a localized type of public domain license. You could start a discussion about the file at FFD if you feel it fails any of the WP:NFCCP but might possibly be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} or you could start ask for input at c:COM:VPC to see whether it might be within the public domain per c:COM:TOO Australia. — Marchjuly (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marshmello & Jelly Roll – Holy Water.jpg was uploaded as the cover art for Holy Water (Marshmello and Jelly Roll song) seems to be nothing but text and smudges on a white background. I can’t tell whether the smudges are due to poor file quality or are actually part of the cover art. Googling shows different versions of the cover art exist, including some with similar smudges; so, they might’ve been intentionally added for effect. Is there enough creativity involved for this file to need to be licensed as non-free even if that’s the case? — Marchjuly (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question arising from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Blackpool tram icon. Is the current Blackpool Transport logo (see at left on [1]) sufficiently complex to be copyrightable? Mackensen (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: The threshold of originality (TOO) the UK follows used to be considered to be quite low as explained in c:COM:TOO UK, and it’s almost certain the logo would’ve been deemed creative/complex enough to be eligible for copyright protection under the UK’s old TOO; a few years ago, UK copyright law apparently changed (or at least Common’s position on UK copyright changed apparently changed) based on the court case THJ v Sheridan. It would probably be a good idea for you to ask about this at c:COM:VPC since that’s almost certainly where the file should be uploaded given that it originates out of the UK if the logo is indeed too simple in the UK. Commons requires the content it hosts to be public domain (PD) in both the US and country of first publication, whereas Wikipedia is really only concerned with the US. If Commons is OK with hosting the file, then there’s no need to upload it locally to Wikipedia. If, on the other hand, the opinion over on Commons is that the file is too creative/complex to be hosted (even under the newer UK copyright law), then it could be uploaded locally here either as non-free content (e.g. {{Non-free logo}}) or possibly as public domain (e.g. {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}); the latter would be the case where during the Commons discussion is that the logo is too simple for the US but creative/complex enough for the UK. You could really err on the side of caution and upload the file locally to Wikipedia if you want without too much of an issue; however, non-free content use needs to satisfy Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy, which is quite restrictive; this policy, though, doesn’t apply to PD or otherwise freely licensed images, and they are much easier to use. So, asking at COM:VPC could save some time and effort when figuring out where to upload the file or how to best license it. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I’ll raise it there as well. Mackensen (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW in the context this question originally came up (as an icon to identify interchange with Blackpool tram services on line diagrams and similar), it would definitely not be fair use so yeah Commons is the place to upload if allowed. I’m not sure why I thought of asking here rather than there, but thanks for the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not really a question of fair use per se because non-free content and fair use aren’t really one and the same when it comes to relevant Wikipedia policy, but it’s very unlikely that using a non-free logo for an icon in the way you described would be considered OK per WP:NFCCP. — Marchjuly (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – I want to insert a family photograph in a Wikipedia biography, which I photographed on my android phone and uploaded through Wikipedia Commons. I’m asked for copyright but that is not applicable given the nature of the photograph. How do I respond about copyright and how do I insert the photo into the article? Thank you. Publicdatauser (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Publicdatauser Can you give us more details on the nature of the photograph? When was it taken, in what country, is the photographer/copyright holder known? If understand you correctly, you’re not the photographer, you took a picture of someone else’s photo. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – The picture was taken in 1977 or 1978 in Rochester NY USA. It was used in an article in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle on July1, 2003, without attribution (the family supplied the photograph). Democrat and Chronicle from Rochester, New York – Newspapers.com™It was likely taken by the University of Rochester Medical School. Publicdatauser (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Publicdatauser Is this about Draft:Gilbert B. Forbes? If so: go to WP:FUW, pick Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is a historical portrait of a person no longer alive.

However, you must wait with this until your draft is made an article, WP only allows non-free stuff in article-space. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I will wait! Publicdatauser (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so i’m currently working on an article about the Rayman 4 prototype, and i’d like to add some screenshots of the prototype to better illustrate and show what the topic actually looks like, however i’ve had some trouble trying to figure out if it’ll abide with the copyright rules. does anyone know if these kinds of images count as fair use? Thatoneraynerd (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there’s a clear free license attached to the images, you must assume they are copyrighted, and thus require meeting our non-free content policy. That doesn’t mean you can’t use them but you need good justification as to why a screenshot is needed. Masem (t) 15:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masem close to figuring out what to do with the screenshots… i’ve checked the policy and the non-free game screenshot template… and i finally realized that i’m meant to upload it to WP, not commons. Thatoneraynerd (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and yes i do think i have a good justification for using the screenshots. to better illustrate the article and it’s topic. from what i’ve checked yes i can upload them, as long as i add the non-free game template.

thanks for the help 😀 Thatoneraynerd (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatoneraynerd: Your to better illustrate the article and it’s topic tends to be considered an argument in favor of WP:DECORATIVE non-free use as opposed to contextual non-free use. When it comes to articles about videogames, a non-free image of the game’s box cover tends to be allowed for primary identification purposes in the main infobox of the article, and then perhaps one in-game screenshot showing the game’s main gameplay interface as an example of its graphics; anything more than that tends to become increasingly harder to justify in terms of Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy as explained in MOS:VGIMAGES. Any non-free screenshot you add is pretty much going to be expected to be strongly connected to reliably sourced critical commentary in the article about whatever the screenshot is showing; screenshots which lack such a strong contextual connection to the tect of the article have an increased chance of being tagged or nominated for deletion.FWIW, Masem has lots of expereince when it comes to non-free content and is also a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games; so, Masem would be a good person to further discuss a particular screenshot with to assess if how you want to use meets Wikipedia policy. Similarly, you could also ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games since many members of that project also have exprience with such non-free screenshots. It would be a mistake to just assume that it’s OK to use a screenshot just because you add it to some template or add some template to it. Template’s aren’t a justification for non-free use per se; templates just can help make policy-compliant non-free content a bit easier to format and use in certain ways. Your account is a day old and non-free content use tends to be one of the harder things for new accounts to get a feel for; so, if you’re asking about screenshots to use in Draft:Rayman 4 (Cancelled prototype), it might be better for you to focus on getting that draft approved as an article and only then worry about adding images to it. Non-free content can’t be used in drafts per non-free content use criterion #9 and anything non-free content you try to add to the draft will just end up being removed and eventually deleted. If you’re asking about adding screenshots to an already existing article, it might be a good idea to propose adding them on that article’s talk page first, particularly if there’s already a screenshot being used in the article and you want to either replace it or add another. Any screenshot you add to an article can be WP:BOLDly removed by another if they feel the screenshot isn’t really an improvement. If that happens, you’ll be expected to establish a consensus in favor of using the screenshot on the article’s talk page. While discussing things, the screenshot could end up being deleted as orphaned non-free use; so, it might be better to discuss things first. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to be fair i am pretty new to wikipedia, so i’m not expected to know everything right out of the gate. Thatoneraynerd (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since non-free content use tends to be one of the harder things for even fairly experienced users new accounts to get a feel for, it’s easy for new users to make mistakes. Mistakes are expected and for the most part understood, but making too many mistakes (particularly the same type of mistake) can lead to problems. Perhaps focusing on textual content and other things for now would be a good idea for a new users such as yourself. Articles aren’t required to have images per se, and you could always revist uploading some after you get a better feel for how WIkipedia works. Since you seem interested in videogames, you should consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games because that’s where you’ll find others who share your interest. It would also be a good place to ask questions specific to videogame articles and how relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines are applied to them. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly bout your previous reply… the thing is, the game/game prototype i’m making a draft about doesn’t actually have any box art. the closest thing you can get to box art for a game with no box art is a screenshot of the main menu. Thatoneraynerd (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thinking about it i probably would only need 2 screenshots anyway. 1 of the main menu to use in the infobox [since the game/prototype doesn’t actually have any box art] and 1 of the gameplay. Thatoneraynerd (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free content can’t be used in drafts regardless; so, it would be better to focus on getting the draft approved as an article first. If you upload non-free content now and try to add it to the draft, it will end up being removed because non-free content can only be used in the article namespace per WP:NFCC#9. If the non-free content then because “orphaned non-free use” because there’s no other article when it can be used in compliance with Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy, the content will be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F5 because non-free content is required to be used in at least one article per WP:NFCC#7. Whether the draft you’re working on is considered to be notable enough to justify a stand-alone article about the prototype is probably something you should discuss with the members of WikiProject Video Games. If you submit the draft for review now, it will almost certainly be declined; moreover, if you try to move the draft to the mainspace yourself, it will almost certainly be draftied or possibly even tagged/nominated for deletion. In either of those three cases, any non-free content will end up being removed/orphaned and then eventually deleted. My suggestion to you is still to focus on the textual content of the draft and getting it approved; once that happens, you’ll be able to figure out the non-free content stuff. Adding images to your draft at this point (regardless of their copyright status) won’t improve its chances of being accepted; that will depend entirely on whether you’re able to clearly establish the subject meets WP:NVG and WP:GNG. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatoneraynerd Like Marchjuly said, non-free stuff is one of the WP-editor’s most arcane arts, and you can’t have it in a draft to begin with, you have to wait until it’s an article. To get a sense of what will probably be acceptable, here are a couple of decent articles with some non-free (and some free) stuff to compare with: Age of Empires (video game) and Fallout: New Vegas. And this assumes you do the uploads right, we are for example very insistent on that you write a WP-acceptable rationale on why this copyrighted thingie should be on our otherwise free-for-anything (sort of) website. Again, checking existing examples can give you a sense of how this should be done. Parts of it is a bit automatic if you go via “Upload a non-free file” at WP:FUW.

You can find more good examples of current articles with non-free stuff listed at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, under “High Quality Articles”. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Former Victorian state MP Denise Allen died 3 years ago, and to my knowledge, from a search of Commons and Flickr, there is no free-use photo available of her, and there is unlikely to be one. The Victorian Parliament website has a photo of her, and after contacting the linked heritage email, I was informed the photo was under the copyright of the Parliament of Victoria, and that there was no permission to upload the photo of Allen to Wikipedia. I am fairly sure an illustrative photo of Denise Allen on this article would meet the WP:NFCC, but I’m a bit wary of uploading a photo after being warded off by the rights holder. Women’s Agenda, Independent Australia, and the ABC (republished from her Facebook page, seemingly) all have photos of Allen available on their website. Would it be best to use one of those? LivelyRatification (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that we don’t need their permission for using it in our traditional dead-person-lead-image-manner. Which doesn’t mean we have to use that particular one, tempting though it may be. The ABC second one is ok, IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another option, screenshot from [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that! I think that seems like the best option, I’ll upload a photo from that video. LivelyRatification (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The flag of mississauga, linked here also appears on wikimedia commons under the CC BY licence. im unable to find a copyright notice anywhere, and the flag was adopted in 1974. because of this, would the flag count as free media? — the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk and the the 🥭 contributions) 00:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image provided meets all criteria, including non-free use rationale for the mentioned page. It also does not violates WP:NFCC, contrary to what the bot said. I have downsized the original image twice MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your non-free usage rationale states it is to be used for the Silk Sonic but you are actually using it in the An Evening with Silk Sonic at Park MGM article. You need to fix your non-free usage rationale. — Whpq (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: It’s also never a good idea to edit war, even with a bot. Bots are tasked to do particular things on Wikipedia based on some clear-cut criteria; bots can develop bugs, but most of the time they just do what they’ve been tasked to do. This bot has been tasked to remove non-free files from articles for which the file’s use fails Wikipedia’s non-free content use criterion #10c. This is why the bot leaves an edit summary linking to WP:NFC#Implementation and this noticeboard when it does remove such a file. The bot will keep removing the file as long as the reason why it is doing so remains unaddressed. So, in general, if you revert a bot only for it to do the same thing again, there’s a pretty good that the bot is doing what it’s supposed to be doing while you’re the one missing something important or making a mistake. It’s at that point you should seek assistance either from the bot’s operator or at a noticeboard/help desk. You reverted the bot four times before asking for help, and techinically you could’ve been blocked for violating WP:3RR. Finally, calling a bot stupid won’t resolve things because a bot has no feelings to hurt and won’t stop because you think it’s stupid; moreover, it’s generally not a good idea to try to resolve disputes/discussuions with bots or anyone else via edit summaries and continue reverting absent any strong major policy-based or major guideline-based reason for doing so. If it’s at all possible that you might be wrong, you should ask for assistance sooner than later. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, I will fix it. The bot was not explicit and I couldn’t see what I was doing wrong. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

​ The bot left the same edit summary each time it removed the file: Removed WP:NFCC violation(s). No valid non-free use rationale for this page. See WP:NFC#Implementation. Questions? Ask here., which is seems explicit enough. Regardless, if you didn’t understand the edit summary the first time you removed the file, then fine; however, that’s when you should’ve asked for help. Reverting the bot each time it left the same edit summary was not a good idea. Please keep this in mind moving forward if you come across another bot edit (or any edit for that matter) that for which you don’t understand the edit summary. It’s better to ask for clarification and avoid multiple reverts, unless the edit summary is complete nonsense or the edit is completely against some major policy or guideline. — Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not straight forward because there was no violation, “Not used in page article was intended for” or something in this vein…all I read its a bunch of mumble jumble that says anything and addresses nothing. Sure, next time I will be sure to double check-twice…but it was the first time it happened to me. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The bot’s edit summary stated No valid non-free use rational for this page. in which this page refers to the article “An Evening with Silk Sonic at Park MGM“. The bot also included links to a more detailed explaination and also a place where you could ask for help if you needed clarification regarding its edit summaries. You deciding to repeatedly revert the bot for whatever reason is entirely on you, and not the fault of the bot. It’s the responsibility of the user wanting to use a non-free file in a particular way to make sure they do so in compliance with Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy. You tried to use the file in a question in a way that didn’t satisfy this policy; so, yes there was a violation. It wasn’t a “world-is-going-to-end” type of violation perhaps, but it was a violation nonetheless. If there was no violation, the bot wouldn’t have kept removing the file each time you re-added it. This is why the bot hasn’t removed this file since you updated the article parameter in the non-free use rationale to reflect the article where you want to use the file. This bot is unable to guess why users want to use a non-free file where they try to use it or whether the file’s use would be otherwise policy compliant if there was a non-free rationale for the particular use; so, it can’t really fix things like that by adding a missing rationale. Now that you’ve done that, the bot should stop. Even so, though, adding a rationale is WP:JUSTONE of the criteria that needs to be met; so, it’s possible that someone else could still challenge the file’s non-free use. If that happens, you should discuss their concerns with them and see if they can be addressed. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Powerwpoint file was created by the West Virginia Museum of American Glass, Ltd.and sent to me by the creator of the document, and it states on the first page of the presentation: “Copyright 2023 West Virginia Museum of American Glass, Ltd. Licensed for re-use on Wikipedia by Randy Warsager.” Randy Warsager is me. May I upload this document to Wikipedia to add to an article about the artist mentioned in the document.? It wonderfully illustrates some of the artwork that is discussed in the article. I can provide to you a JPG screenshot of the document’s first page or more if that would be helpful. Thank you very much. Rwarsager (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwarsager I’m guessing this document contains images of works by Ceraglass and Ceragraphic? Rather than a Powerpoint document, images of the individual works are preferable. However, we would need to know the copyright status of the works illustrated, and the copyright status of the images of them. Nthep (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply. Yes, the Powerpoint does contain numerous images of items of glassware that were created by the artist’s company. I think I understand. I don’t know if this helps, but all the items are the property of the Museum itself and the images/photos were all taken by the Museum. Would this mean that perhaps the Powerpoint — to which I was granted a license to reuse on Wikipedia –would be permissible to use since the images are limited to the Museum’s own property? Thank you again for your assistance in understanding these issues. Rwarsager (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwarsager: based upon your description above, there could be two copyrights to consider for each photograph: one for the photographed work and one for the photo itself. Generally, the person taking a photo is considered to be it’s copyright holder and only that person can release their photo under the type of free license that Wikipedia accepts. However, when someone photographs someone else’s creative work, their copyright authorship over their photo doesn’t necessarily nulify or otherwise supersede the copyright rights of the creator of whatever they photographed. Since you’re asking about photographs of museum exhibits, you might find c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography, c:COM:DW and c:COM:PD-Art to be helpful. Another important thing to understand is that “For Wikipedia use only”, “For Randy Warsager’s use only”, “For non-commercial use only”, etc. types of copyright licenses are too restrictive for Wikipedia’s purposes as explained in c:COM:LJ; basically, the museum would have license their powerpoint in such a way that allows anyone anywhere in the world to reuse it for any purpose (including commericial and derivtive use) at anytime for the powerpoint to not be OK to upload to Wikipedia (regardless of the copyright status of any photos of copright content it might contain). You’re going to need to museum to give their WP:CONSENT for the powerpoint or any museum photos contained in the powerpoint, and then most likely going to need to get the same CONSENT from the copyrght holders of any of the photographed works shown in the powerpoint to avoid any files you upload being tagged/nominated for deletion. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. I appreciate your reply. This is more complicated than I had realized. Thanks again. Rwarsager (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are are regulations for when I take photos of products. I read that cover art of CDs, blurays, books, board games and such are protected, but does this extend to photos of other products that aren’t media. For example if I would take a photo of the jar of peanut butter I bought at the store yesterday. Is the design of the label enough to disqualify the photo for any (all) free licenses.

For reference there is File:Milka Alpine Milk Chocolate chunks and wrapper.jpg which is under CC-BY-SA-4.0, but there the design on the plastic wrapper is mostly the (trademarked) logo and partly obscured by the pieces of chocolate.

In other cases I have seen that instead of a single product, a photo of a whole supermarket shelf is used. Is there a regulation similar to freedom of panorama that regulates items “available to the public”?
—2A02:810B:C011:9E00:3D38:4DA7:E17A:4334 (talk) 2A02:810B:C011:9E00:3D38:4DA7:E17A:4334 (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, product wrappers, boxes, etc. unless it is strictly material that would fall under the threshold of originality (generally if its just simple shapes and words, like that Milka wrapper), are still considered copyright. Trademark is not the same as copyright, so that Milke photo is fine as a CC-BY-SA.

Your second qustion, you generally have it right. As long as the copyrighted art is not the focus of the shot, such that it can be consdiered de minimus use, then such a photo can be made with a free license. Masem (t) 21:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP 2A02:810B:C011:9E00:3D38:4DA7:E17A:4334. This some information on this at c:COM:PACKAGING and in other parts of c:COM:CB, but it kind of would depend on product per se. In your example of a peanut butter jar, the jar itself (if a commercial brand) would almost certainly be considered to utilitarian in design to be eligible for copyright protection, but the labelling on the jar could be something complex/creative enough to be eligible for such protection. If you took a photo of the jar, you would be the copyright holder of the photo itself, but the photo could also be considered a WP:Derivative work in which the copyright status of the photographed product would need to be also considered. Whether such a photo would be OK for Wikipedia or Commons could depend on how much it focuses on any copyrighted content created by someone else. If the peanut butter jar’s labelling is something considered protected by copyright and the photo focuses too much on it, then the WP:CONSENT of the copyright holder of the labelling might be considered needed for the photo to be considered free enough for Wikipedia’s or Commons’ purposes. Wikipedia, however, does allow non-free content to be uploaded and used (Commons doesn’t); so, it’s possible such a photo could be uploaded locally to Wikipedia without obtaining such consent under a free license provided for the photo and a non-free one for the photographed product, but it’s use would be subject to Wikipedia’s non-free content use policy because the file isn’t 100% so to speak. FWIW, this only really works if you take the photo yourself; if you upload a photo taken by someone else then could mean there are multiple copyright holders involved, thus requiring multiple consents. Anyway, for reference, the US court case s:s:Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. is often cited when it comes to such photos being discussed on Wikipedia and Commons and has been given as the rationale for keeping many of them nominated for deletion on Commons. I’m not sure whether there’s an easy “one size fits all” type of answer that can be given here, but it does seem that photos of products as a whole which don’t focus too much on any one particular copyright aspect of the product (e.g. its labelling) have a good chance of being kept on Commons if the inclusion of the copyrighted element is considered to be an “incidental” (or an “unavoidable”) part of the photo as a whole, and the uploader is the copyright holder of the photo. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:2025_World_Amateur_Team_Championships_golf_tournaments_logo.png is the official logo of the 2025 World Golf Amateur Team Championships for both men and women. Those two Championships have one article each. The logo was downloaded with the intention to be placed in top of the infoboxes in both articles, but is only allowed in men’s article 2025 Eisenhower Trophy. How do we make it allowed for the women’s article 2025 Espirito Santo Trophy ?

Regards EEJB (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC) EEJB (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the file page, you need a second, separate rationale for the second use of the image, identifying the second article for that purpose. Masem (t) 18:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you EEJB (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-MAGov}} is a new copyright license created by SecretName101 earlier today, who then used it as the licensing for the following files:

The EXIF data for all of these files list “Henry Shifrin/Governor’s Press Office” as the copyright holder of the photo, and the Harvard University State Copyright Center lists Massachusetts as a light green state. This kind of thing was asked about at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/12#PD-MAGov in December 2023, but that discussion really didn’t get far. It was also discussed at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/05#PD-MA license in May 2017, and there is a corresponding template on Commons as c:Template:PD-MAGov. Assuming that this license is OK and it can be used for these photos, I don’t really see any reason why they can’t be moved to Commons. There appear to be errors in the local version of the license that probably need to be fixed. Is this license OK? What’s the best way to fix it if it is? — Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SecretName101 is uploading these files and using this license because he is blocked from uploading on Commons. (I originally placed the block; it was later upheld by community decision.) I feel that uploading these images on enwiki – that do not belong on enwiki – is inappropriate behavior.

I don’t think there’s any need for this license on enwiki. Any file with the license would be eligible for Commons anyway. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is no need for this template here. These files could be on Commons. Yann (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535 Commons (per its community’s own past admissions) relies on persuading editors on other Wikiprojects to upload eligible files directly to Commons rather than to individual wikis. The onus there is on Commons to attract contributors from other Wikis. If Commons admins chose to chase contributors off of Commons: perhaps they should reflect on whether doing so serves Commons well rather than harassing those they have chased away for contributions on other projects.

The images I have uploaded were all uploaded for specific use in articles and drafts I am working on. They all are public domain, and therefore suitable for use.

The collective choice of yourself and other admins to go beyond the preview of treating blocks as a preventative action and instead use it as punitive was one you made.

I have decided to focus my time on Wikipedia. For instance if I, for instance, see Aiden Fink has an article and no photograph, and know that I am sitting on photos I have taken of him, I will do my job of enhancing Wikipedia by uploading a photo which can serve as illustration for his article. And I will honor the Commons block by not sockpuppeting on commons but rather staying within Wikipedia as an uploader.

Also, I will note it is curious your rationale for insisting I needed to be blocked on Commons because past upload filenames (dating back a decade on Commons) did not adhere to the standards only newly-ratified one year ago has not led you to do the same for numerous major uploaders who continue to have the same issues with their filenames. Consistency in applying that same standard would have meant similarly blocking Gage Skidmore (for instance) from uploading to Commons too, and that has not occurred. Inconsistent enforcement, targeting, or something else perhaps? SecretName101 (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535, Yann, and SecretName101: The purpose of this discussion and letting you know about it wasn’t to rehash a dispute on Commons. I notified SecretName101 because they created the license and uploaded the files; I notified Yann and PI.1415926535 (as well as some others) because they were involved in previous discussions about the PD-MAGov license over on Commons. The intent was only to assess whether this license is OK and whether the files that were uploaded are OK as licensed after seeing them in Special:NewFiles. FWIW, I was neither aware of SecretName101 being blocked from uploading on Commons nor that said block was still an ongoing dispute. This isn’t really the right venue to argue for or against such a block, or even for general ranting against particular user/users or Commons in general. If there are concerns about user behavior on Wikipedia, they’re really better off being discussed at WP:ANI; if there are cncerns about user behavior on Commons, they’re better off being discussed on Commons.

Anyway, for reference, there are local versions of {{PD-CAGov}} and {{PD-FLGov}} for use on Wikipedia; so, creating such a license for Massachusettes is probably OK per se, as long as it’s as valid license. There’s no real need, however, to host WP:PD/WP:CC-BY files locally on Wikipedia if they’re fine for Commons; so, perhaps SecretName101 could just continue to upload them locally to Wikipedia but make sure to self-tag them with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} as long as they’re unable to upload them directly to Commons themselves. Someone should eventually move the files and the local version will then end up deleted per WP:F8. Once moved to Commons, the files can be relicensed as c:Template:PD-MAGov or another suitable license as needed (perhaps even by SecretName101 themselves). Ideally, it would be best for SecretName101 to make sure the files are as ready as possible for WP:MTC (i.e. make sure the issues raised over on Commons about their prior uploads are not an issue with these files as best as they can), but again Commons is probably ultimately where these files should be regardless. Of course, if SecretName101 has uploaded any of their own photos to Wikipedia under a CC-by-sa license, they can tag them with {{Keep local}} if they would prefer that a local version be maintained after being moved to Commons.

Finally, if the “PD-MAGov” is really as a copyright license, then perhaps it might be a good idea to discuss updating WP:PD#US government works and c:COM:PD since both those sections currently only mention California and Florida. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly I would be okay locally-uploading the public domain files I wish to use in articles and drafts with the “Copy to Wikimedia Commons” tag on them so long as using said tag would not be seen as problematic by anyone.

I have not done so as of yet, as I feared that perhaps Commons admins would view that as effectively a back-door means of uploading files onto Commons (violating that local block in spirit). Since uploading files locally is entirely localized to Wikipedia, but tagging them “move to commons” might be viewed as uploading-to-commons by proxy. I preferred to avoid angering Commons admins. SecretName101 (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly As for the copyright, yes this is a valid license/rationale for images being public domain. Similar to the other licenses you mentioned that have both Commons and Wikipedia copyright templates. SecretName101 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not protected by the copyright of photographer? The photographer is running a commercial business www.joshuaqualls.com. which expressly holds the copyright of the work by Joshua Qualls. Thus, this does not look like work for hire, it looks like he has a contract to provide photography to the Governor’s 0ffice, but he keeps the copyright, which does not seem at all illegal but a standard contract provision for photography services. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker Qualls, has , for years worked as an official staff photographer of the governor’s office in Massachusetts. Under both this current and the previous governor. Per his entry at Mass Almanac, he is currently given the title of “Director of Photography” in the current Office of the Governor, which he was given in 2023, but his service in state office extends two years further back than his current title (he was previously “Director of Photography, Official Photographer & Multimedia Specialist” in the Governor’s Office of the previous governor, Charlie Baker).

Some people have multiple sources of income: evidently Qualls both holds a government job and has a hustle as a private photographer separate from that.

His work as a state employee are considered works of the state government, and are therefore considered public domain due to the State of Massachusetts’ law regarding the public domain status of works of its state government. Same with other state government photographers in Massachusetts. SecretName101 (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He can still be given titles, and still be an independent contractor, sure working for the governor, but that doesn’t make him not an independent contractor, and it does not make his work, work for hire under copyright. General government employees are not allowed a “side hustle” for all kinds of reasons. He is a professional photographer, that’s not a side hustle. The copyright rule in Massachusetts expressly allows the state to receive copyrighted works and does not and cannot erase their federal copyright. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker you are mistaken. Qualls has an annual wage of over $80k per year as an employee of the Governor’s office. Qualls has worked in the office since getting a summer job there in 2019

Also, yes a state employee can hold a separate private job, hence why Massachusetts has a whole conflict of interest law for state employees to follow regarding their private business activities and interest.

Please dig into these things yourself instead of demanding others prove a negative against your inkling-based assertions. SecretName101 (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested he did not get paid. What we have is no inkling, we have an explicit claim of copyright in joshuaqualls.com that is attached to the image file. Either we must adjuducate that his claim is false, or we must err on the side of caution and not accept without an explicit release, or we will host files even with an explicit claim of copyright on them and no explicit release (which no doubt will lead to more files with explicit claims of copyright on them from multiple photographers). Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia should not be hosting files that are eligible to be on Commons, and users should not be uploading such files. Wikipedia:Uploading images#Multiproject upload discusses that. It creates extra work for other editors to then transfer the files to Commons, and is effectively a backdoor method of bypassing an upload block. Because of that, I consider SecretName101 uploading such files to enwiki to be disruptive, just as I would (and have) other editors doing the same. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The license is a perfectly valid license (where it applies legitimately), though certainly a version on en-wiki should not say “Wikimedia Commons makes no guarantee…”
• As for Qualls, even if he is possibly on contract rather than an employee, surely he is accepting having his work (repeatedly) licensed this way by the government of Massachusetts, with which he has a business relationship. If he had a problem with that, he would presumably tell them to stop doing this, since it would probably make it impossible for him to defend his copyright in court. Offhand I don’t see any problem with these files.
• I personally am in a difficult position here because as an admin on both wikis I am wearing two hats. I know Marchjuly does not want to discuss the Commons block here, but we cannot have an intelligent discussion while ignoring the elephant in the room: that block is why we have a problem here.

I tried and failed to broker an understanding on Commons that would have allowed SecretName101 to upload a small number of files there, large enough that it would support his work on other projects without disrupting Commons. After what ensued, I am firmly in support of Commons’ current upload block against this user, and as a Commons admin I oppose those files being transferred to Commons: it would amount to block evasion, and it seems to me that it would only encourage more of the same.

Presumably if it weren’t for the block, en-wiki and Commons would both want these files moved to Commons, and I can fully understand why en-wiki might still prefer that. If I am correct that other Commons admins would agree with me in opposing those transfers, we may have something of a Mexican standoff here. My suggestion: host the files on en-wiki if they serve the needs of some en-wiki article or articles; otherwise just delete them without prejudice against someone else independent of SecretName101 uploading them to Commons in the future, but not at his behest, and not by transferring files from en-wiki or any other wiki where he was the initial uploader. On the other hand, if someone were to upload a large number of files to Commons even on that basis (uploaded by Secretname101 to en-wiki, deleted from en-wiki, uploaded by someone else to Commons), I would have to presume that they were effectively helping SecretName101 evade the Commons block, and I would have to oppose that. I hesitate to put an exact number on that “large number” because that would effectively welcome someone to go one file short of that.

I do not maintain a watchlist on en-wiki, so if someone wants me to reply further, then please ping. – Jmabel | Talk 06:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the history with SecretName101 on Commons, I concur with my dual-admin colleagues Pi.1415926535 and Jmabel. I can say that SecretName101 has a pathway to regaining his ability to upload files on Commons by cleaning up his historic mess. He has chosen not to do that and to upload here instead. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Just to be clear: what exactly do you point to as that the state is doing that: So, far what we appear to have is files with explicit claims of copyright on them, which would be how the state dealt with having the copyright in someone else, saying the copyright is in someone else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]