Wikipedia:Media copyright questions Information

From Wikipedia
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
  1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
  2. 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 the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
  3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
  4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
  5. Hit Publish changes.
  6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
  1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
  2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
  3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
  4. 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 purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Government maps of Sindh villages: are these allowed?

See here: [1]

I checked both Wikimedia's summary of Pakistan's copyright law for government works, as well as the site where I found these maps, and I'm still confused. I don't see any claim of copyright anywhere on the site, but it may be implied (I'm not sure how copyright law in Pakistan works). Would uploading any of these images to Wikimedia be a copyright violation?


3 kids in a trenchcoat ( talk) 07:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Currently copyright applies even if not claimed with words. is also a place to look for suitable maps to use here. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Subject of photo owns copyright in Singapore, except...

There's a discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gan Siow Huang 1.jpg that may be of interest to participants on this page.

There's some disagreement about evidence required for permission to host an image on Commons, given that Singaporean law gives copyright ownership to the subject of a photograph if certain conditions apply. The uploader is vehemently defending the image to a small (but skeptical) audience. Additional viewpoints would be helpful. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 01:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I uploaded the photo, and would be very grateful for broader participation. If you don't mind, I will share this in WikiProject Singapore as well. Just a small clarification that Singapore law gives copyright ownership to the person who commissions the image, rather than the subject, though this is very often the subject themselves. Kohlrabi Pickle ( talk) 03:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects with their own policies and guidelines and their own respective communities; this doesn't mean that an editor cannot edit on both, but you should still be aware of any type of cross-wiki c:COM:CANVASSing is not going to be viewed favorably. Moreover, whatever things might have been decided here on Wikipedia regarding this will have no impact on Commons at all. Some Commons editors don't have a that great of an opinion of English Wikipedia and some Wikipedia feel the same way about Commons. This is being discussed over at Commons; so, you're going to have do things according to Commons policies and guidelines as explained in c:Commons:For Wikipedians. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you for pointing this out, I didn't know that. I've invited three users to share their opinions, and I will not ask any more. I don't think I've helped matters on the comity front; I think I'm coming across as argumentative and slightly rabid. But I don't know what to do; the consequence of overcaution is another many years of Singaporean politicians' articles without photos. Kohlrabi Pickle ( talk) 05:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
        • You can solicit the opinions of other editors who might be able to help resolve things, and you should be OK as long as you do so in accordance with WP:APPNOTE. However, you need to remember that Commons has its own policies and guidelines and the discussion will be resolved based on those, not what we want might want here at Wikipedia. Did you check c:COM:Singapore and see if there's something there because that's what Commons will be looking at, not whether the consequence of overcaution is another many years of Singaporean politicians' articles without photos. If Singaporean copyright law has recently changed or the Commons information on it is incorrect, the thing to do would be to start a discussion at c:Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Singapore and explain the issue. It will also help if you can find actual Singaporean court cases which support the way you think the law should be interpreted. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
          Thank you for the advice, I'm very grateful. I'll do some research on court cases, and when I'm ready, will start a discussion at the copyright rules page you mentioned. Kohlrabi Pickle ( talk) 07:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Stop making it a massive pain to add album covers to articles

Almost none of us who contribute to entries on pages are American copyright lawyers. So would you please stop making it a massive pain to contribute music album covers without running the risk of getting them taken down for some reason you have to be an American copyright lawyer to fully comprehend? Face up to the fact that albums are commercial products, and consider that, if you were to remove these flaming hoops of BS, maybe the artists/bands might sell some more copies of the recording because more people will know what to look for. -- Eyevocal ( talk) 22:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

We're not here to help artists sell more copies. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
It is not a "massive pain" and you do not need to be a copyright lawyer. Just read the images section of Wikipedia:Non-free content. If an article about an album exists in main space, you can upload a low resolution image of the cover art, for use in that article only. What's so difficult about that? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Eyevocal: can you tell us what you found difficult? In my experience using the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard is pretty straightforward as it will walk you through this particular scenario. –  Finnusertop ( talkcontribs) 18:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Eyevocal: Since you seem to have sorted things out, just try to remember in the future that every file uploaded to Wikipedia needs to be proivided with the information listed at WP:IUP#RI. I'm not sure how WP:UPLOAD exactly works and whether it prompts you for such information, but you should check the file's page after it's been uploaded to make sure. In addition, if the file you upload is licensed as non-free content, you need to provided the information listed at WP:NFC#Implementation. So, for a freely licensed image, you need an appropriate copyright license and some general information about the image's provenance (e.g. Template:Information); for a non-free image, you need an appropriate copyright license, information about the image's provenance and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the image. For reference, most non-free use rationale templates can cover the last two steps since they typically contain parameter for the "source" and "author" of the image; you only need to add such information separately if you choose to write out the non-free rationale by hand. If you're able to add all of this information via the Upload Wizard, then great; if not, then just add to the file page yourself once the image has been uploaded. If you leave out any of the required info mentioned above only increases the chance of the file being tagged for speedy deletion by either a WP:BOT or another editor. In some cases, another editor might be able to finish what you started, but it's probably not a good idea to rely on that happening all of the time.
Finally, while there are things about Wikipedia that can be rather frustrating, try to remember that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines were established over the years because the Wikipedia community felt they were needed; so, you often will get a better response from others when requesting assistance if you somehow try to phrase things in way that doesn't seem to imply that other editors are just trying to make your life difficult. My guess is that you probably wouldn't respond too favorably to someone who posts "Stop being a massive pain by uploading files with incomplete information" on some Wikipedia page; so, try to remember that when asking for help on noticeboards like this. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Marchjuly: And I would respond (and still do now, for that matter) with, "Then don't make it so tricky to put that information in, fcrynoutloud!" The people responsible for all this may not have been trying to make things difficult, but they're still managing to succeed. -- Eyevocal ( talk) 03:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Others might respond to that by pointing out that quite a number of people uploading non-free album covers seem to have been able to do so for years without any issues by simply following the current guidance. I really don't want to go back and forth with you about this since it's not going to resolve anything, and I'm really not out to try and make you even more frustrated than you already are. There's a bit of a learning curve with respect to anything having to do with Wikipedia which means the ride can get a bit bumpy at first; however, if there are serious issues at play here, then they should be addressed. So, if you would like to make some suggestions as to how to make the uploading process clearer or easier to follow, then you can probably do so at Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard; if you want to make suggestions as to ways to improve WP:NFC or WP:NFCC, you can do so at WT:NFC (that talk page covers both NFC and NFCC); if you feel that better guidance should be given at WP:IUP#RI, then you can propose that at WT:IUP. I'm pretty sure concrete suggestions (unless they're way out there) are always going to be welcomed and treated seriously; others might not agree with them or implement them, but they will always be given consideration. My personal experience has been that the only way to change the way something is being done on Wikipedia (particularly something which has been done for a long time) is to go to the relevant policy or guideline talk page, explain what the problem is, and then try to see what others think. Simply saying "stop making it a massive pain to do XXXX" is not really giving anyone anything to work with and will not lead to any productive discussion. So, if you can better clarify what you found difficult (as Finnusertop queried above), then start a discussion about things on the relevant talk page; perhaps others will then be able to figure out a way to address the issues you raise. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Here on Wikipedia competence is required. But images are a bit complicated, so you can ask at Wikipedia:Files for upload for things like album covers. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"Thank you for uploading File:Cranberries Bury the Hatchet 2LP cover.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source." My opinion on this process still stands. -- Eyevocal ( talk) 19:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • The image was uploaded without any indication about the license. The alternative, to streamline the process, would apparently be not requiring us to indicate the license of the image? Do you have another alternative? -- Hammersoft ( talk) 13:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Hammersoft: Make it much easier to fill in, especially if you wound up not using the Upload Wizard. -- Eyevocal ( talk) 05:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @ Eyevocal: When you added a non-free use rationale to the file's page with this edit, you removed the copyright license that had been provided for the file. I'm assuming you did this unintentionally because a non-free file is required to have both a copyright license and a non-free use rationale. Removing the license meant that the file was now at risk of being tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F4, which is why you received a notification about it on your user talk page. Luckily, your mistake was caught by another editor who re-added the license you removed; so, things should be OK now. So, while none of this may change your opinion on the process, the latest notification was the result of an issue that you yourself created; and issue that could've been easily avoided if you had been a little more careful and hadn't removed the license from the file's page. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 14:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Eyevocal: you're right, the copyright guidance on Wikipedia can be confusing and it's often poorly explained. However, the File Upload Wizard is quite well designed to help you to put the right info in when you upload the file. If you don't get that bit right first time, then that's when all the annoying warnings appear, so I understand that can be frustrating. Here's what you need to do when you upload an album cover:

  • First, you're only allowed to use the album cover on an article about that album. This is just because of copyright laws.
  • You have to provide information about where you got the file, who made it and give the reason why you think you can use it.
  • In the upload wizard, select the option "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use."
  • In the panel that appears, enter the name of the Wikipedia article where you plan to use the image.
  • Then select "This is the official cover art of a work." (4th option)
  • In the options menu, select "cover of a sound recording (Album, CD)"
  • fill in all the required boxes.
  • For "epxlain how the use of this file will be minimal" write something like "Low-res image to be used only in the article discussing this album" or words to that effect. It just has to sound like you've thought about it.
  • If all the required boxes are filled in, press Upload. If you've missed anything, it will stay greyed out, so you need to find the bit you've missed.

Hope that helps, if you want to try again. That's basically it. No copyright law degree required, just a bit of thought and 5 minutes of your time. Cnbrb ( talk) 16:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Cnbrb: I don't think it was the Upload Wizard I used in the first place. Still, thank you very much for understanding and supplying your explanation, and not being immediately dismissive. Now, if only the default picture uploading method was the Wizard and all the guff and bafflegab and wires all over the floor could be removed from the other method (or the other method itself could be removed, period), then that would save me and others a lot of grief. -- Eyevocal ( talk) 05:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Great, glad that's been of some use. I do recommend the upload wizard - while it seems a little bit fiddly, it's designed to guide you through the process to put the right info in. You can always find it in the left-hand menu of every Wikipedia page, under the link marked "Upload file". Note that when you start on the first screen, the large blue button "Upload your own or a freely licensed file" is a link to Wikimedia Commons, which is a separate website for storing copyright-free or licenced images. Just to be clear, Commons would not be suitable for an album cover, so use the 2nd button, "Upload a non-free file" to keep it on the main Wikipedia site. Good luck , hope you get it sorted. Cnbrb ( talk) 08:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
A question I would have to Eyevocal is through what links or steps they went through to upload an image that wasn't through the "Upload File" on the left menu thus evoking the Upload Wizard? I know there are ways to get to the stripped down upload page that required you to add all the extra stuff, but to the best that I know, those are not easy to get to, and we shouldn't be making those as visible to new editors for exactly the problems that Eyevocal had expressed. (Expert users should still have access to it). -- Masem ( t) 13:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Display of copyright notice in an image caption

Is it proper for an image caption to display a copyright notice when the image documentation confirms that it is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license? Here's a diff: [2] Ewulp ( talk) 23:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

A photograph of a 1798 painting is in the public domain, even if somebody slaps a copyright notice on it. I have removed it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
( edit conflict)It seems like that information would be better off added to the file's description that the image's caption, and it's not required to be added to the image's caption for proper attirbution. Asking at c:COM:VPC about how to best attribute the might be a good idea because the file was uploaded to Commons. Commons, however, has nothing to do with MOS:CAPTION and WP:EL, and adding an external link to the file's caption like this might be seen as a form of self-promotion that's not allowed per WP:ELNO and WP:LINKSPAM. Those things, however, aren't really related to the copyright of the file; so, you may have to ask about them at WP:ELN or WP:WPSPAM. Before you do any of those things though, you might want to try and discuss your concerns with editor adding the links because they might just think that it's something they're required to do. FWIW, they don't appear to have been active that much, and their recent burst of editing has been mainly to add links to their "museum" to various articles. It all could just be a good-faith misundertanding that might be able to be sorted out without having to drop a ton of bricks on their head. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. I'll initiate a discussion with the editor. Ewulp ( talk) 02:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Ewulp: My guess here is that the adding of the links is not an attempt at c:COM:LL or anything like that; it's just probably a misunderstanding of c:COM:2D copying, c:COM:PD-Art and c:COM:DW. The uploader probably assumes that since they took the photo that they own the copyright over it and have created a derivtive work; I don't think they feel (at least I hope not) that they somehow own the copyright on a painting from 1798. Perhaps they own or are connected to the museum when the paintings are displayed and feel per c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography that they can impose non-copyright related restrictions over the photos they're uploading to Commons and don't realize that Commons doesn't really care about such things. Not all the editor's uploads, however, are a "problem" since the ones of 3D works of art are probably OK as licensed since those would be considered a derivative work. Anyway, I've asked about this at c:COM:VPC#PD-Art? so perhaps someone there can help sort things out. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
CC BY licenses require that the uses of the work must retain and mention elements, such as attribution, notice, license, and that may be done in any reasonable manner based on the medium and context. From previous discussions, the consensual practice on Wikipedia is that the presence of the required elements on the description page of the file meets the condition of the CC license and the mentions do not need to be, nor should they be, additionally copied with the displays of the file in the articles. From the display, the description page of the file, with the required mentions, is accessible with a simple click. In short, the way of meeting the license requirement is to place the copyright-related mentions in the description page of the file and to have the display link to that page. Occasionally, new users place the mentions in the articles. As Marchjuly wisely said, the user is probably just unfamiliar with the manner to apply the conditions of the license on Wikipedia. The practice applies to licensed files in general. In the particular case of licensed reproductions of public domain paintings, Wikimedia considers that the copyright does not apply in the United States, as noted in the other comments, although it may apply in other coutries. -- Asclepias ( talk) 03:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Fair use image removed from the article

Hello! I am not very literate with copyright issues, need your help. Several days ago I created an article No. 3/No. 13 (Magenta, Black, Green on Orange) using this file, which was already used in Mark Rothko article. The bot removed it saying: No valid non-free use rationale for this page. I've read the guidelines, but I still don't understand what should be done to put it back. The article is fully dedicated to the painting, so the rules for non free use are met. Can anyone help? Thank you! Less Unless ( talk) 09:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Less Unless: every use of a non-free image, like this one of a Rothko work, requires a separate non-free use rationale explaining why it meets the non free content criteria for the article(s) it is proposed to use it in. This image needs a rationale adding for the article you started. Nthep ( talk) 09:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Nthep Thank you! All done now. Less Unless ( talk) 09:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Football Match Tickets

Good afternoon! I'm looking for advice about uploading an image of a football match ticket (specifically the 2005 Scottish League Cup Final). I was hoping to use this in the article of Davie Cooper which I have been working on, as it features an image of Cooper and this match was dedicated to him 10 years after his death. I do own the ticket and I believe it would be a good addition to the article, however I am worried that there may be a rule I don't know covering the use of images of tickets/ matchday memorabilia? Any advice would be much appreciated.-- Andrew Henderson ( talk) 13:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect if it has the Scottish FA crest or either of the teams crests on it, then it would be copyrighted (unless you cover them I suppose). The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 13:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

British Armed Forces Rugby League crests copyrighted?

Hi all. I recently uploaded the crests of the rugby league teams of the British Army, Royal Navy and British Police: File:British Army RL crest.jpeg, File:Royal Navy Rugby League.jpg, File:Great Britain Police RL logo.png. To be on the safe side, I uploaded them as non-free but I was wondering if they might come under Template:PD-UKGov like their main logos? If that is the case, should they be uploaded to Commons? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 08:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

In all likelihood they are copyrighted. As neither the army nor navy RL bodies are over 50 years old then even if the logos are Crown Copyright they are still in the 50 year period during which the copyright applies. The police logo isn't likely to be Crown Copyright as I think the police RL is more of a private body so the copyright will belong to the designers of the logo. Nthep ( talk) 08:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Bot keeps removing image

Hi, a bot keeps removing this image File:Football Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina logo.svg from the Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team page. It claims "No valid non-free use rationale for this page" but when I click on the file description page for the image, the non free use rationale is included. Please help. Bosniantennis ( talk) 04:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: sorry, I believe I just figured it out by reading a previous response, each article needs its own non free use rationale included. Bosniantennis ( talk) 04:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Image of a sculpture for article bout court case regarding it

United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster is about a court case about a non-free sculpture. Would a picture of that sculpture be fair-use. There's no free equivalent, and various attributes unique to this specific object were involved in the case, including appearance and siting. I'm not sure how well pure prose captures it. However, it's the case not the object that is the article topic. DMacks ( talk) 20:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it would be reasonable. From a non-free standpoint, its not that the image has to be about the topic, but relevant to the sourced text in that article. So while that article is about the court case, the discussion of the sculpture in depth prior to the case itself (and presuming not discussed anywhere else on WP) would make it reasonable to have non-free image of it. -- Masem ( t) 20:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! DMacks ( talk) 20:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Image copyright questions

Hi - I'm a bit wooly about some of the finer details of copyrights with regards to imagery, hoping for a bit of advice from an expert. Please see this image, which is a part of the collection described here. The image dates to circa 1900, but the Canmore website asserts copyright - I'm assuming that we can't use it, but wondering whether pd-US-unpublished might apply? Assuming that we can't use it, what are the rules about creating an image in some sort of drawing package that essentially reproduces it - would that be a prohibited derivative work, would there be any fair use defense? Thanks in advance. GirthSummit (blether) 10:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Updating Maps

These pages have many issues including an out of date map.

If you look at the 2013 reorganization, Tahoua is defined as a region with now 11 départements. You can see an accurate map here.

But how do i find a map that would not be under copyright to correct the current out-of-date map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimosher ( talkcontribs) 10:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Upload a profile picture of a living person

Hello, I recently created a new article with the title "Chris Mould (illustrator)". I found a profile picture which the illustrator uploaded himself on his official Twitter. Can I use it or what do I need to do to remove the copyright tags in my picture information? Thanks for your help.

Marchrain13 This would not be permitted - the illustrator has uploaded it to his Twitter channel, but he presumably didn't simultaneously release it for use elsewhere. You need a picture which the photographer has explicitly made available under a suitable licence. GirthSummit (blether) 14:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Backwards copy

There's a discussion about the be or not be of a Template:Backwards copy on Talk:Christian ethics at Talk:Christian_ethics#Suspect_backwards-copy, if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing image from national team page due to WP:NFC#UUI#17

Hi, I'd like some clarification on this please. An editor is removing the free use rationale for the image associated with the Bosnian national team due to WP:NFC#UUI#17 . The crest, which is for the governing body of football in the country, is also emblazoned on the jerseys of national teams and is it's de facto branding. This is true of many national team pages, for example Serbia national football team, which has not been removed. However, an editor is removing Bosnia and Herzegovina national football team image based on this rationale. Any kind of clarification would be good thanks. Bosniantennis ( talk) 18:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This has been a problem with NFCUUI for as long as I remember. It cannot answer the question: if a child entity shares branding with its parent entity, does is lack its own branding? –  Finnusertop ( talkcontribs) 22:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
What we generally want to avoid under NFCC and with NFC#UUI#17 is the re-use of the same logo across multiple team pages when none of them have a unique logo compared to the organization they are under. The example would be at many university sports program which would share the same logo/mascot/branding for all of its teams - even if the teams are independently notable, reusing that logo over and over again would violate the principle of NFCC. That said, the cases here appear to be the reuse of the logo exactly once on the national team, in additional to the agency overseeing the sport for the country. Assuming that it is unlikely any of the other national teams for that agency will be notable, the exactly one duplication of the logo is reasonable, but any more would become a problem. (eg if there was a youth team that was highlighted and having the same logo). Again, we're trying to minimize non-free here so NFC#UUI#17 is aimed for cases where clear overuse can happen. One duplication is not excessive overuse, but any more could be. -- Masem ( t) 00:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Except that we have plenty of cases like File:Hammarby IF logo.svg, where the logo is used on every subsidiary team of the overarching organization. Removing these has, in the past, been impossible as edit warriors keep fighting them back in. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 20:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Indie Horror Game Copyright

Is Mary from the 2012 game Ib copyrighted? If it is, is there a way to have an image of her on Wikipedia without breaking copyright guidelines? And, I found all of the images on I know that kouri is very protective of their artwork and media so they will not get stolen from so I'm curious. Thanks in advance. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by RemiruPlushie ( talkcontribs)

The publisher of the game owns the copyright to all the images from the game. -- Orange Mike | Talk 03:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Logos that adapt each year

Hello B, and your child, B-bot. I'm fairly new year and I'm wondering what you do with logos that change each year. I've added the non-free logos, which are posted on the pages to help define the pages. The logos are low-res and used only for identification. I added new logos for the 2021 year (the logos often change), and b-bot marked (flagged?) the old logos. I would prefer that they remain, because some logos revert back, but maybe you've dealt with this and have a different take. Let me know what you think. Comm260 ncu ( talk) 20:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Comm260 ncu. If you've got a question about B-bot, then you can ask B (the administrator who operates that WP:BOT) at User talk:B.
As for you question about former logos. it generally depends on the file's licensing (i.e. the copyright status of the logo). If the logo you're updating is uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content, then you're going to need to meet WP:NFCC for it to avoid deletion. If it does meet the NFCC, then there are two ways to upload the new file.
  1. If the change in the logo is relatively minor (e.g. a minor color change, straightening, change from 2020 to 2021) and has to do with a not really copyrightable element (e.g. simple text) so that the old and new logos are pretty much identical, then you can probably just update the existing non-free file by going to it's file page and clicking on "update version". So, for example, I think it would've been OK to do this for File:Minnesota-marathon-logos—2019—lake-wobegon-trail-marathon.png and maybe even for File:Minnesota-marathon-logos—2019—med-city.png since the changes in those logos seem to be fairly minor. Uploading the new logo as a separate file is OK, but perhaps not necessary. If you do decide to update an existing file, make sure to also update its file's non-free use rationale accordingly if there are any changes (e.g. a new source url, new description) in the provenance of the file. You might also want to consider requesting that the file be renamed if necessary.
  2. If the change in the logo is a major change (e.g. completely different logo), then it's best to upload it as a new separate file altogether since there might be another possible non-free use for the old logo.
Regardless whether you update or upload as a new file, the old logo or the old revision of the file will end up being deleted per WP:F5 and WP:NFCC#7 if they're not being used in at least one article. There's really no way to use an old revision of a file; so, those are almost always going to end up deleted. A non-free former logo which is a separate file, however, sometimes can be used as long as it is considered to meet WP:NFCC#8 (see WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFC#cite_note-4). Basically, just replacing the old logo in the main infobox and then moving it to somewhere else in the same article (e.g. a former logos section) isn't going to be considered OK unless there is sourced critical commentary specific to the logo itself or specific to the brand change that was made added to the article is support; moreover, if the change is relatively minor (e.g. change in sponsor name or date without changing the main elements of the logo), then even sourced critical commentary might not be enough per WP:NFCC#3a (see WP:NFC#Number of items).
All of what I posted above only applies to non-free content. If you're updating a freely licensed or public domain content that was uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons and the updated version would qualify for the same licensing, then you should follow c:COM:OVERWRITE and most likely upload it as a separate file. Former logos which have been uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons are not subject to WP:NFCC and thus are much easier to use in Wikipedia articles. You need to be careful here though because Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use (i.e. non-free content) per c:COM:FAIR and fair use content uploaded to Commons will end up deleted, sometimes fairly quickly. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 00:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Very helpful, Marchjuly! I'll let the old ones be deleted by B-bot. Your knowledge base on this subject is vast. Is this the niche in which you've specialized here on this online encyclopedia? I'm always curious to know how others have gotten bitten by the Wikipedia bug. Comm260 ncu ( talk) 16:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I only know what I know from editing myself and looking at edits made by others, and from seeking assistance from more experienced editors when I get stuck or otherwise have a question. Each editor probably has an niche area they focus upon (intentionally or unintentionally) and the ones who respond to queries here and at WT:NFCC or WT:IUP tend have a good familiarity with images and how they generally should be OK to use. Most of the heavy lifting in such areas, however, was probably done years ago when the respective policy and guideline pages were being developed; so, if you can find someone who was involved in those discussion, you usually can find someone who knows not only what the policy/guideline is, but also why it is what it is. Often the way to find such people is to check the policy/guideline talk page (including archives) and see what might've been discussed before. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)