Jump to content

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Media copyright questions
    Shortcuts

    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 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.
    3. 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.
    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 start a new discussion
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

    File:The Karnival Kid (1929).webm

    [edit]

    This film on wikipedia is illegal in European union and another countries. It should be limited to only ip's of USA. It would be not available on another countries. It must implement to secure only ip's of USA. It will be required VPN. Edwtie (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    On the English Wikipedia, run on Wikimedia servers located in the United States, generally only US copyright is considered. This is different for Commons files intended to be used in Wikipedias in a variety of languages. There, the policy is also to respect the copyright of the source country of a work. In this case, the work is entirely American in origin and can therefore be hosted on Commons as well as used in the English Wikipedia. Felix QW (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But video's are still illegal to show in Europe. it's ilegal to due copy right notice in Europe. This video must be blocked at this regions europe,asia and america. It would be seen: This film is not available in this regio European Union and will showed only in USA. Edwtie (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The file is actually hosted on Commons. -- Whpq (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Convenience link: File:The Karnival Kid (1929).webm
    Wikipedia is unable to restrict content based on where a user is located. Different languages are free to make policies about what content they will include in their articles. That means (for example) the German-language Wikipedia can refuse to have that file in their articles, on the assumption that people who choose German Wiki are in Germany where the file is not free. Each language's Wikipedia site is independent, and will make its own decisions based on whatever their policies are. Whether it meets Commons rules is something you will have to take up on that site, which is independent of the English Wikipedia (we just use their media in our articles). The file on Commons has an extensive note about where the image is vs isn't usable. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that note is correct. It should be fine in most of Europe due to the rule of the shorter term. Which is part of the problem of such things; I know US copyright pretty well, but knowing the rules of a couple dozen European states, even with EU unifications, is very hard, and all ~200 nations in the world impossible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have heard of two court rulings on the rule of the shorter term of United States works in Europe.
    1. There was supposedly a ruling in Germany (I don't know when or where) where it was concluded that the rule of the shorter term can't be used for United States works in Germany because of a very old bilateral treaty between Germany and the United States. The same problem could potentially arise in other countries which have entered bilateral treaties with the United States, if the country still considers the treaty to be in effect.
    2. There was a ruling in France where it was concluded that it isn't possible to use the rule of the shorter term on United States works if the work is in the public domain because of lack of compliance with copyright formalities (i.e. {{PD-US-no notice}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}), because of a ban on formalities in the Berne Convention. This potentially also affects other Berne Convention countries, provided that the courts in other countries will interpret the Berne Convention in the same way. However, France presumably still applies the rule of the shorter term on United States works if the work is in the public domain in the United States due to having been published more than 95 years ago.
    There is also a general danger with the rule of the shorter term in that a work may have been published simultaneously (within 30 days) in multiple countries. The Berne Convention states that the source country is then the country with the shortest copyright term. In this situation, the rule of the shorter term isn't usually used in the countries in which it was published simultaneously. I don't know if this film was published simultaneously in multiple countries, but it can be the case with famous photographs (probably Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima was published simultaneously in many countries) and with newspaper comic strips which were often published in many newspapers in many different countries.
    The {{PD-in}} template on Commons doesn't seem to apply the rule of the shorter term wherever it should. It also fails with applying the correct copyright term for films as there is no internationally recognised way of determining who the author is; each country has its own way of producing a list of co-authors which may differ from the list used in other countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really concerned about the German treaty issue applying to other countries. For one, the UK "bilateral treaty" seems to have been no more than the British ambassador assuring us that their copyright to didn't discriminate against Americans and the US president issuing a proclamation giving protection to British works. The German bilateral treaty is also really non-explicit. It required President McKinley to make that proclamation, but no details on what that bound the US to long term. It seems like more of a German thing to interpret the treaty as still in effect and meaning "no rule of the shorter term".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Future public domain

    [edit]

    Currently, we have {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons in}} which can be used for specifying when a file will be suitable for Commons; that is, when it will be in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country. However, there does not seem to be a template for marking when a file will become {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, if this happens before the file becomes PD-source. You can use parser functions to make the file information page update automatically when the file enters the public domain in the United States, and the parser functions can be substituted so that the file information page is cleaned up after the file becomes {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. However, this seems unnecessary complicated, and users could be confused by the parser functions if they are around for a long time. Would it be possible to create a template for indicating the year when the file will become {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, so that we keep track of when to re-tag files? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A future date displays:
    An older date displays:
    -- GreenC 17:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's for expiry in the source country. There is currently no template which can be added to non-free files which will become {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} in a year or two, so it's hard to track which files to re-tag in the future. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, on 1 January 2028, someone will have to re-tag File:Csvd1932.jpg from fair use to {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Who will remember to do this without a template for tracking this? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There could be a page or a category tracking this, like we have on Commons. Yann (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be very useful. I find many files like this:
    1. An unsigned film poster or book cover, but sometimes the art style is recognisable, so an art expert might have named the artist somewhere so it's not really safe to assume that it's anonymous, or
    2. An unsigned book cover, but the name of the artist might appear on the title page or in the colophon, which I don't have access to, or
    3. There's a signature, but due to WP:NFCC#3b, I can't read it, or
    4. I find a name but no death year, or
    5. I find a death year but it's PD-US a decade before it's PD-source.
    If it was published in the 1920s, I just re-tag with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, if possible with the correct year. If it was published in the 1930s, there would ideally be a way to keep track of the file so that it can be retagged in a few years. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Threshold of originality of a translation?

    [edit]

    Does the difference between Que ceux qui s'opposent à cette liste lèvent les mains ! ..... Qui donc se déclare "contre" cette liste ? and All those who oppose this list raise their hands! ... Now, who says "no" to this list? meet the threshold of originality? That is, should File:Bolshevik elections in Tintin.JPG be tagged with {{PD-US-1923-abroad|2054}} or with {{subst:rfu}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    I have a concern with two images I've just uploaded of Franz Eher postcards, here (which I added to Nuremberg Laws) and here. I placed the U.S. Alien Property Custodian public domain note on them, but their copyright in Germany is not clear to me. Is it correct for these images to be hosted on Wikimedia, or should they be hosted locally on English Wikipedia? If so, can they simply be moved to the English wiki, or must they be re-uploaded? Indefatigable2 talk 21:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Indefatigable2. Since the files were uploaded to Commons, you're probably better off asking about them at c:COM:VPC. Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects with their own communites, policies, guidelines, etc. Even though there's lots of overlapping when it comes to image licensing, there's also some differences, and the two communities don't always see the same thing the same way. If Commons can't host the files, then whether they can be hosted locally here on Wikipedia most likely depends on the reason why can't host them. Commons requires the content it hosts to be acceptably licensed per both US copyright law and the country of first publication's copyright law; in some cases, content which is considered to be PD under US copyright law can be hosted locally even if it's not OK for Commons because Wikipedia is only really concerned with US copyright law. Wikipedia also allows content to be uploaded as non-free when it satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which is something Commons doesn't allow at all. As for the other part of your question, I don't believe there's a way to "move" files from Commons to Wikipedia, and that the files in question would need to be reuploaded locally to Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate the info. Indefatigable2 talk 00:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have nominated both files for deletion on Commons. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Richard Klein. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    St Paul's Survives

    [edit]

    This photo on St Paul's Cathedral is a fair use upload. The photo on Commons that's used in St Paul's Survives is licensed as public domain. Does the PD licensing also apply to the U.S.? I was thinking about nominating it for FP, but obviously I won't if it's considered fair use here. APK hi :-) (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air Raid Damage in Britain during the Second World War HU36220.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ok, thanks. APK hi :-) (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Shaxian Snacks Restaurant Tomas Mapua Santa Cruz Manila parkB.jpg

    [edit]

    There's no reason to not believe the own work claim made by Valenzuela400 for File:Shaxian Snacks Restaurant Tomas Mapua Santa Cruz Manila parkB.jpg, but the photo could have issues per c:COM:FOP Philippines and c:COM:TOO Philippines because there's no freedom of panorama for buildings built on or after November 14, 1972, in the Philippines, and the sign/logo shown in the photo could be above the threshold of originality of the Philippines. Given that the file is uploaded locally to (English) Wikipedia, the first issue probably can be resolved by adding a {{FoP-USonly}} license to the file's page for the building since there's freedom of panorama for buildings under US copyright law. One could debate whether the building is actually eligible for copyright protection since it appears to be fairly utilitarian in design, but "FoP-USonly" would still work even if the building's design is protected under Philippine copyright law. The logo, however, is where things get a bit murky; the US seems to have a lower threshold of originality than the Philippines; so, the license {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} could work for the logo if it's deemed below the US threshold; if not, however, and "de minimis" isn't being claimed for the logo (which doesn't seem to be the case since it seems to be the focus of the photo), then the logo would need to be treated as non-free, with a non-free use rationale and non-free copyright license needing to be added to file's page. Given that the file isn't currently being used in any articles, treating the logo as non-free means the file would fail non-free content use criterion #7 and subject to speedy deletion per speedy deletion criterion F5. Any opinions on whether this logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Marchjuly, first allow me to congratulate you as patroller; the subject photo was taken by me when an actor possibly bought food thereat and speedily rode the vehicle; sad that I could not take her pic; hence at least I got a pic of her vehicle, and note that the area is no parking and towing place, her vehicle may have issues on these 2 matters, and Tomas Mapua street is so long, for which reason I uploaded the entire photo; I agree with you that the pics is contentious on the angles you mentioned; for this reason I uploaded another, so that in time, I may know who that actress was who regularly buy this food; therefore, I have no objection to the deletion, and you may tag it speedy deletion, thank you and very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    I think that each part of the orange-red logo is probably below the ToO, but together they create non-simple logo. — Ирука13 11:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Building constructions in the Philippines and the United States

    [edit]

    Building constructions in the Philippines and the United States - I have in the past few days uploaded some of my own photos taken of buildings and structures under construction and located in the Philippines, particularly 7 pics in Construction of Members Church of God International Hospital. Before I transferred some to Commons, I examined these Construction of the dome structure of the The Galeón, Construction of The Skysuites Tower as of July 27, 2016, Building construction in the United States 190 photos and 25 subcategories. In addition, I have uploaded 3 photos at Wikipedia, having in mind the above query; :::@Marchjuly: Finding them fitting and OK, may I ask you opinion if these building under construction are correctly transferred to Commons, thank you and very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    There is freedom of panorama (FOP) for buildings and other inhabitable structures located in the US under US copyright law, but other countries can and often do things differently. The Philippines, for examples, does allow freedom of panorama for buildings under its copyright law but only for buildings constructed prior to November 14, 1972; so, any photos of a building built after that date might be considered to be an infringement on the rights of the building's designer or whoever is considered to be the copyright holder of the building's design. Of course, I guess it's possible that in some cases a building's design might be so simple that it's considered utilitarian or otherwise absent of any elements which might be considered creative enough to merit copyright protection, and this kind of rationale could apply to a building while its being built until it starts to get close to its completed state where it actually starts looking like its going to look upon completion. FWIW, this is not really an issue under US copyright law, but I'm not sure how countries with FOP practices more restrictive than the US deal with such things. One other thing to remember is that any signs or advertisements affixed to a building could in and of themselves be eligible for copyright protection separate from the building itself, particularly if not a permanent feature of the building that was part of the original structure; so, for example, a side wall of a building would, in principle, be ineligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, but a mural painted on that wall or an advertising poster papering the wall could be eligible for protection if certain conditions are met. Other countries might treat things differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Mafeje affair and Archie Mafeje

    [edit]

    are the images in this articles problematics (copy right wise)? I am trying to get Mafeje affair and Archie Mafeje to GA status but the images seems to be the issue which I cannot figure if they are suitable and pass the copyvio quick fail bar or not. So some advise and thoughts will help in which images to keep and which to remove just to get through this hurdle. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @FuzzyMagma all the images that say they are out of copyright in South Africa are right in that respect. However to be hosted here on en:wp they need to be public domain in the US as that is where Wikipedia's servers are based. To be hosted on Commons they need to be public domain in both the US and the country of origin. At the moment I'm not seeing any of them as PD in the US, as there is no information given about publication history (if any) in the US. I suspect none of them are PD in the US and shouldn't be on Commons, although in the right circumstances some could be hosted on en:wp under the WP:Non free content policy. Nthep (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I will then remove them from the article, and proceed to delete them from commons and then see which will appropriate for non-free inclusion.
    thanks for your time FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    I'd like to request assistance in determining the copyright status of the following image I'd like to use in articles about nativism in United States politics and anti-immigration sentiment. 1 The following newspaper lists "The City of New Haven" as contributing it, which makes me think it is possibly eligible for use as it is released by a governmental agency. As I am not versed in Wikipedia copyright law, I am requesting assistance from more experienced editors in this pursuit. BootsED (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Only the US federal govt must release material in public domain, states and local govt can use copyrights. So likely this is a non free image — Masem (t) 20:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d really like to use this image. Is there a way to clarify if this image is acceptable for use? Is there a process for contacting the City of New Haven for further detail? Again, I don’t add images so I am unaware and inexperienced with this process. BootsED (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You would need to ask the copyright holder release the image under an acceptably free license. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. -- Whpq (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I’ll need to review this further once I have the time. It looks complex, so if anyone would like to assist me in this endeavor, I would appreciate it. Thanks again! BootsED (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are some examples on how to ask for copyright holder permission given in WP:PERMISSION, but there's no guarantee they will grant it, particularly if they feel there's a way for them to commercially exploit the image. The newspaper article you linked to shows multiple images and it's not clear which one you're asking about. The photos of the pamplets could involve two or more copyright: one for the photo, and one for each pamplet. Generally, individual words or other text is ineligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, but written prose (e.g. books) can and often is. If the pamplets were created by an employee of the US federal goverment as part of their official duties, they could be also be ineligible for copyright protection. So, the copyright status of the pamplets is what matters more here because anyone can freely photograph them and release their photo under an acceptable free license if they're ineligible for copyright protection. In other words, Wikipedia might not be able to host these photos, but it might be able to host another photo of the pamplets if the photo was acceptably licensed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification Marchjuly!
    I was referring to the first image taken in the snow. According to the article the pamphlets were found around the city after being made by an anonymous individual. The article states the photo was provided by "Len Speiller, spokesman for Mayor Justin Elicker" from the City of New Haven, Connecticut. I believe in this instance, the pamphlets are not eligible for copyright protection, but the photo provided by Len Spiller of the pamphlets are?
    To get permission, I take it I would email Len Speiller with one of the example templates for permission and then link to the VRT release generator. Please let me know if I am incorrect in my understanding. BootsED (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Dash cam video from non-federal law enforcement (Texas, United States)

    [edit]

    Hello, I created the article Barnes v. Felix. This is a U.S. Supreme Court case about excessive force. There is a dash camera video of the incident at the center of the case, and I was thinking of including it (in video or as a still shot), but I am having trouble determining its copyright status as it is not U.S. Federal law enforcement. (I don't believe the inclusion would cause any other issues, but if anyone notices any, let me know).

    Here is information that may be relevant:

    • The law enforcement officer whose dash camera recorded the incident was county level in Harris County, Texas, United States
    • The footage was released publicly (unclear about the circumstances).
    • The Daily Mail (which is hardly a reliable source) marks the dash cam video in its article with "Courtesy- Houston Police" and describes it as "Dash cam video released this week as part of a grand jury decision" in its caption.
    • This local news article details the family's legal action to get the footage released, but there are no updates on the legal outcome.

    The best version of the footage I could find is in this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/split-second-decision-supreme-court-returns-question-police-killings-rcna183005 Thank you to anyone who takes the time to read or answer this. Mason7512 (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Ballotpedia as a source for images

    [edit]

    Ballotpedia's Image use policy page states the site doesn't allow copyrighted images to be used, but this is somewhat unclear because content released under Creative Commons licenses are still copyrighted images. It also doesn't seem to make a distinction between NC-ND CC licenses and other CC licenses only requiring attribution. The reason I'm asking this is because File:Ankit Jain.png was originally uploaded without a source, but the uploader subsequently added "Ballotpedia" as the source. It's possible that the uploader is referring to this page, but there's no mention of a license for the image. There also appears to be no way to click on the image to go to it's page where a license might be indicated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    When you finally get through to the image categories, there are literally thousands of non-free files of candidates [3] on the site and while the specific file isn't in there AFAIK, I'd be very doubtful that it is PD. IMO it should be nominated for deletion here for lacking sufficient information to establish that it is PD. Nthep (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified the uploader of this discussion, and perhaps they will clarify why they chose a {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} license for the file. I think it's a pretty safe bet to assume that the image the original work of Ballotpedia, but most likely was provided by a third-party. If the provenance can be clarified a bit more, then perhaps all that is needed is a verification of copyright holder WP:CONSENT; otherwise, I not sure the file can be kept as licensed, and I know it can't be converted to non-free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for updating me. I found the file here and assumed it was available for fair use under the CC license since Ballotpedia policies are similar to Wikimedia with regards to copyrighted images. But I was also puzzled at the apparent inability to see File:Ankit_Jain.png on Ballotpedia. --Plumber (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying things Plumber. As you've probably noticed, though, the file was deleted by a Wikipedia administrator named Explicit as a copyright violation per WP:F9. If you'd like some clarification as to why, you probably should ask Explicit about it on their user talk page. FWIW, if the file's licensing can be sorted out (e.g. copyright holder WP:CONSENT can be verified), you can request the file be restored at WP:REFUND. In addition, what Ballotpedia does with respect to image licensing really only matters with respect to its own original content, and its general licensing most likely doesn't apply to any third-party content it's hosting. So, it might be better to look for images released by the copyright holders themselves on official websites or social media accounts instead since this mitigates the chance of any license laundering (even unintentional) taking place. You could always try WP:PERMISSION if you find an image online that might not be clearly licensed or licensed in a way that's not OK for Wikipedia's purposes.
    Finally, fair use and Creative Commons aren't really the same thing. "Fair use" is a practice in which allows the re-use of copyrighted content without copyright holder consent in cases where certain general conditions are met, whereas Creative Commons allows copyright holders to (intentionally) release their work under a type of license under conditions chosen by the copyright holder themselves. When it comes to Wikipedia, fair use content is always treated as "non-free content" (though Wikipedia's policy is much more restrictive), while Creative Commons content can be treated "free content" depending on the type of license chosen by the copyright holder. In both cases, the licensed work is still protected by copyright per se, but the degree of protection differs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Aspects of twentieth century painting, 1963.pdf

    [edit]

    Hi, I didn't get an answer. This may be deleted from Commons following c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aspects of twentieth century painting, 1963.pdf. Would it be OK to host it here? Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Many of the paintings that are included seem quite likely to be under US copyright per URAA restoration, particularly the paintings from after 1929 by non-US artists. Or are you asking about hosting it as non-free content? It's hard to imagine a context where it would satisfy WP:NFCC. Toohool (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be possible to justify the non-free use of this in either a stand-alone article about the exhibition itself (at the top or in the main infobox for primary identification purposes) much in the same way you would try to justify the use of non-free poster art in a stand-alone article about an event, or a stand-alone article about the catalog itself much in the same way you would try to justify the use of a non-free book cover in stand-alone article about a book. Other types of non-free use, however, are probably going to be much harder to justify. Anything other than non-free use would entirely depend on whether the work is eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks. I deleted it. Yann (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Marvin Barnes.jpg and American Basketball Association draft (and a potential move to the 1973 ABA draft page)

    [edit]

    Hi, I'm writing this because I recently received a notice regarding the inclusion of File:Marvin Barnes.jpg onto the American Basketball Association draft page. To wit, I've noticed its removal during the last few days, but I wasn't so sure at the time why it was removed specifically. However, due to me reading up on the media copyright problems on display, I want to help address why that image's specific inclusion should be given a pass for coverage as a part of non-free use for the article that currently exists alongside a potential moving of certain data into their own ABA draft pages in the future.

    Though this image is subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws, and the stricter requirements of Wikipedia's non-free content policies, because:

    1. It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual. (In this case, it's of a player that had significant value in the American Basketball Association by being a part of the ABA All-Time Team, an ABA Rookie of the Year winner, was a multi-time ABA All-Star, and had an appearance in the All-ABA Second Team in 1975.)
    2. It is of much lower resolution than the original image in question. Copies made from it will be of very inferior quality.
    3. The photo is only being used for informational purposes. In this case, it is to inform people what Marvin Barnes looked like as a player and showcase that he is an important player in the ABA's history via the drafting system they had in 1973, regardless of whether it is included as a part of the American Basketball Association draft page or as a part of a separate page regarding the 1973 ABA draft in question.
    4. Its inclusion in the articles mentioned adds significantly to those articles at hand because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. In this case, it's to display a player that had significant success during their period of time in the ABA, to the point of being named an ABA All-Time Team member.

    I hope this concern, for lack of a better term, helps clarify why that image's inclusion should be justified in the ABA draft article page for right now alongside a potential move for that page's quality onto the 1973 ABA draft page later on down the line if such a move is merited in the future. Thanks for reading. 70.162.127.129 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions&oldid=1272640447"