Archives

Archive list Archive year 2006 Closed Archive year 2007 Closed Archive year 2008 Closed Archive year 2009 Closed Archive year 2010 Closed Archive year 2011 Closed Archive year 2012 Closed Archive year 2013 Closed Archive year 2014 Closed Archive year 2015 Closed Archive year 2016 Closed Archive year 2017 Closed Archive year 2018 Closed Archive year 2019 Closed Archive year 2020 Closed Archive year 2021 Closed Archive year 2022 Closed Archive year 2023 Closed Archive year 2024 Open Some pre-2009 archives from pages now merged here (note: more recent questions from these pages can be found at WP:MCQ or its archives above.) Requested copyright examinations archives Can I use... 2005-2006 archive Can I use... January-August 2007 archive Can I use... August-December 2007 archive Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 1 Wikipedia:Image copyright help desk/Archive 2

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

Following resolution reduction I believe this image fits the criteria for usage exclusively on the page HH70. What would be an example non-free substitution? Doeze (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the "purpose of use in the article": That a high-temperature superconducting tokamak exists and has confined a plasma. A picture isn't needed to show that the tokomak exists and works. A reliable reference can do the same. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#8 for the kinds of things non-free content can be used for. If you had sources that described the confinement method and shape of the confined plasma, an image might be justified. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I am not sure I have ever seen a free photo of what the inside of an active i.e plasma-filled, fusing tokamak looks like, or even a source. So a photo thereof might very well pass WP:NFCC#8 on tokamak as an illustration of what an active tokamak looks like from the inside. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there are a few including the two I placed at the top of Magnetic confinement fusion, but these are of non-HTS tokamaks and non-private ventures. I think it is still important as a historical image, and to demonstrate that a HTS device performs on a similar level. It is also a unique colour compared to existing images but I cannot find a citation for that so far. Doeze (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Orlando City SC (2010–2014) article is in the process of being merged into the Orlando City SC article. I was hoping to be able to use this file, File:Orlando City 2012.svg under the Colors and badge section of the former in this process. Raskuly (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raskuly. The use of non-free logos tends to be harder to justify per WP:NFCC#8 due to WP:NFC#cite_note-4 and WP:NFC#CS because former logos are usually just added to show what the logo might've looked like without any real reliably sourced critical commentary about the logo itself or the the reason why the organization, team, company, etc. felt the need to change its choice of branding. So, that's the hurdle you're pretty much going to need to overcome when you try to justify this logo's non-free use.

In addition and not really related to what I posted above, the way the main infobox logo (File:Orlando City 2014.svg) is being used twice in the logo is also a problem per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFG. There's really no justification for using the current team's logo twice in the article: the use in the main infobox is fine, but the other use later on in Orlando City SC#Colors and badge isn't. Each non-free use requires a separate, specific non-free use rationale be added to the file's page, regardless of the whether the file is being used in different articles or more than once in the same article; so, the second use clearly fails NFCC#10c. Moreover, it's (at least in my opinion) going to be really hard to provide a valid non-free use rationale (i.e. one that satisfies all ten WP:NFCCP) for this second use; so, for that reason I've removed the file from that particular use. If you disagree with my assessment, please add a separate non-free use for that particular use to the file's page. Please understand, though, that adding the missing rationale is WP:JUSTONE (actually just part of one) of the criteria that needs to be satisfied for the use to be considered valid, and (once again) I think you're going to have a hard time justify that particular use if the file is tagged with {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} or discussed at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lone File:Orlando City 2014.svg in the body of the article was a remnant of me adding the original logo for the team next to it before it was removed because I wasn't aware there was a copyright issue. I was attempting to emulate what was done in the Colors and badge section of the Columbus Crew article. If the usage of the older Columbus Crew badges was justified, is it possible for the old Orlando City badge to be justified in the body of the article alongside the current one? I've no experience in copyright, so apologies. Raskuly (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

​The use of the older logo isn't really a copyright issue per se but rather more a Wikipedia non-free content use policy. Using the logo would most likely be justifiable under the US copyright law concept of fair use, but Wikipedia policy was intentionally set up to be more restrictive than fair use.

As for the use of similar files in other logos, all I can say about that is WP:OTHERIMAGE in that non-free use (pretty much like everything else on Wikipedia) isn't really assessed beforehand and issues tend to be noticed after the fact. It's possible the non-free use of logos in that other article are acceptable per policy, but it's just as possible that they're not. This doesn't necessarily those who added the logos to that other article intentionally disregarded policy in doing so; it could mean they were just unaware or just thought it would be OK to do because they saw it being done in yet another article. An individual non-free use, in principle, ultimately needs to be assessed in an of its own accord as to whether it meets relevant policy; sometimes examples of similar types of non-free use can be helpful in doing this, but these examples don't automatically mean all similar types of non-free use are OK. One thing about the Columbus Crew article you're referencing is that the team's current logo (File:Columbus Crew logo 2021.svg) isn't licensed as non-free content but rather as {{PD-logo}}, which means its use on Wikipedia isn't subject to the restrictions of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy but rather only WP:IUP and MOS:LOGO. This might be a bit hard to grasp if you're not too familiar with image licensing and Wikipedia policy, but trying to compare current CC logo to the current OC logo is sort of like trying to compare an apple to an orange because their respective uses aren't subject to exactly the same Wikipedia policies.

With former logos, regardless of their copyright status, it's generally better to put the logo as close to the article content directly related to it so as to make the contextual encyclopedic connection between logo and text as easy-to-understand as possible. Image gallery formatting in the case of non-free logos is generally best avoided per WP:NFG, with the logos instead being added inline. The sourced commentary related to the logo should be added to the article itself and not just the file's non-free use rationale because the article is where readers are going to be more likely to see it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had added this, File:Travis Scott - Escape Plan.png, to the page for Mafia for Travis Scott and it was removed, I was just wondering why? It and Escape Plan are two singles which were released together as a pair and thus, they have the same cover and would follow the same non-free rationale logic as the page for Escape Plan. Would I have to resubmit the file with logic according to the page for Mafia ItsJulTheJThe2nd (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need a sepearate rationale on the file page to justify support on Mafia. — Masem (t) 16:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way I can go onto the page and add a separate rationale? Looking at the note section in the template box of the summary on the file page, it looks like it was also intended to be used for the Mafia page already ItsJulTheJThe2nd (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit the page and you'll see a template (using something like {{non-free rationale|bunch of text}} that will include article=Escape Plan. Copy that entire block and paste after it and change the article to be pointing to Mafia (with disambiguation). — Masem (t) 23:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, I was able to get that fixed, I'm gonna try and throw it back up on the Mafia page now ItsJulTheJThe2nd (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:October H8TE poster.jpg

Is this ok to add to Draft:October H8TE or do I need to obtain permission? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not okay to add this movie poster to your draft. Most media needs to be freely licensed in order to be used on Wikipedia. That movie poster is copyrighted and not under a free license. Note that being made available to the public does not mean it is not copyrighted. Wikipedia does all the use of non-free images. Use of such images must meet all of the non-free content criteria. In the case of this movie poster, you cannot use it right now because non-free content may only be used in article space (WP:NFCC#9), and your work is in draft space. If your draft does get moved to article space, you could use it then as movie posters used in the infobox for identifying the movie in the article would be an acceptable use of non-free content.

My suggestion to is to add the tag {{db-author}} to the poster file to request its deletion as the uploader. When your draft is an article, you can upload the poster then for use in the article's infobox. Cheers -- Whpq (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allthemilescombined1. I agree with what Whpq posted above in that this most likely needs to be treated as non-free content, unless you're able to clearly show that it's copyright holder has released the poster under one of the free licenses listed in WP:ICT/FL. So, unless you're able to do that, you won't be able to justify this file's non-free use in the draft you're working on per non-free content use criterion #9 and WP:DRAFTS#Creating and editing drafts. Furthermore, unless you're able to find a valid non-free use for the file, there's going to be no way for the file to avoid speedy deletion per non-free content use criterion #7 and speedy deletion criterion #5. That's OK, though, because deleted files aren't gone forever, and they can be restored fairly easily per WP:REFUND in many cases if the issues which led to their deletion are subsequently resolved. FWIW, whether your draft is ultimately approved as an article doesn't depend at all on whether there's a movie poster being used in the main infobox but totally depends on whether the film you're trying to create an article about meets WP:NFILM; so, my suggestion to you is to focus on getting your draft approved first and them worry about adding images to it after it's been accepted as an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I moved the article to mainspace. Do I need to delete and upload again? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Allthemilescombined1: You can't delete the file even if it was necessary to do so; only a Wikipedia administrator can do that. What you can and should do is to as add a non-free use rationale and a non-free copyright license because without those things the file will end up being tagged for speedy deletion. For the non-free use rationale, I suggest you use the template {{Non-free use rationale poster}}. There are instructions on how to use this template given on its documentation page. Basically, you just need to copy-and-paste the template's syntax into the "Summary" section on the file's page, and then fill in as many of the parameters as you can. For the copyright license, I suggest you use the template {{Non-free movie poster}}. The process is similar to adding the non-free use rationale, only you copy-and-paste this template's syntax into the "Licensing" section of the file's page. Whether you want to do both things in a single edit or in two separate edits doesn't really matter, but you should leave an edit summary explaining what you did. When you're done with all this, you can also add then template {{WikiProject Film}} to the file's talk page if you want. Just follow the instructions given on that template's documentation page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think File:Creolefamily1918.jpg and File:TraditionalCreolehouses1885.jpg are licensed correctly given their respective file names since it seems rather unlikely the the uploader themselves took these photos. There's no source or other information provided about the photos on their file pages, but the {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} license the uploader choose suggest they feel these are their "own work", which again seems highly unlikely. Given that the files are being used in Sierra Leone Creole people, these could've already entered into the public domain per c:COM:Sierra Leone and perhaps even {{PD-US-expired}}. Even if these photos are from a photo album possessed by the uploader (like they've claimed for two other of their uploads in a post on my user talk page), possessing a photo doesn't necessarily make one its copyright holder, and a scan or otherwise slavish reproduction of a photo isn't considered sufficient to establish a new copyright for the scan/reproduction; so, the cc-by-sa-4.0 licensing seems incorrect regardless of how you try to justify it.

Given that the definition of published with respect to copyright law can vary (sometimes even quite a bit) from country to country, and Sierra Leonean copyright law only grants copyright protection for anonymous works for 50 years after publication (which could in some cases simply mean distributing copies of the photo) these could've entered into the public domain many years ago under Sierra Leonean copyright law. Moreover, Sierra Leone isn't a signatory of the Berne Convention, which could mean there's no DMCA restoration to worry about under US copyright law. Still having posted all of the above, it's quite possible I'm missing something important here, which is why I asking others to take a look at these files and assess their licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, File:TraditionalCreolehouses1885.jpg is OK on Commons with c:Template:PD-old-assumed-expired. Yann (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would like some other opinions on File:Headline1933.jpg as to whether it might be OK to relicense as {{PD-US-not renewed}}. It's a clipping from the February 12, 1933, issue of the Oakland Tribune, and was uploaded as non-free content back in 2007. The way it's being used in Delilah Beasley#Community service and social activist fails (at least in my opinion) WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8; FWIW, there is also a MOS:TEXTASIMAGES issue but that minor in comparison the non-free ones. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the file 2024 logo of the People's Power (Georgia).png that i added on the info box of 2024–2025 Georgian protests was eliminated by a bot and i cant understand why. Boackandwhite (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boackandwhite: Because that is not a free file. It can only be used when the stringent criteria of WP:NFCC are met. That does not include using it next to the name on any page they’re mentioned on. Since you did not include a valid fair use rationale for using it on the page you added to, per policy it will be removed by the bot. You must place a fair use rationale for each and every page you want to use it for on the file page before you add it. But again, there is not a valid use case under the NFCC for your desired use. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Boackandwhite: There's really no way to justify the use of any non-free file as a flag icon in an infobox like you were trying to do; so, even if you added a non-free use rationale for that particular use to the file's page, it would almost certainly be challenged and subsequently removed. Adding the missing rationale would stop the bot from removing the file again, but there would still be other non-free content use criteria the use failed.

Finally, just for reference, a WP:BOT like the one that removed the file is tasked to do certain specific things based on certain criteria, and it will keep doing those things as long as the same situation persists. When this particular bot removed the file the first time, it left an edit summary explaining why. If you didn't understand the edit summary, then that's OK; however, it's better to ask for assistance in such cases than to immediate re-add a file like you did here because the bot will only come back (like it did) and remove the file again as long as the same issue persists. For sure, there could be a bug or something else wrong with the bot, but you probably should ask the bot's operator about that to make sure. Continuing to re-add the file after it was removed again by the same bot several times for exactly the same reason was not wise at all and could easily be considered edit warring by an Wikipedia administrator. Edit warring is bad in general, but it makes even less sense to edit war with a bot because the bot will keep doing what it's been tasked to do no matter how many times you state it's wrong in edit summaries. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, This remember me the movie where the genius kid invent a robot based on chess logic for stop every launch of Nuclear weapons during cold war, what was the title?🤔 Boackandwhite (talk) 12:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...WarGames? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know if these are able to be used on Wikipedia? [1] [2] [3]

I'm intending to use them on the Ahmad Shah Durrani page if possible. Noorullah (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are not freely licensed. Rule of thumb - if the image is being sold, it's not free and is highly unlikely to be relicensed as free (because the photographer is trying to sell it). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fix ping, @Noorullah21:. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noorullah21 There are several issues with respect to those photos. The first is that there's a chance that they're WP:Derivative works in which there are two separate copyrights to take into account. The first copyright has to do with the photographed artwork and the second has to do with the photo itself. Unless it can be verified the both the artwork or the photo are either within the public domain for some reason per c:COM:Afghanistan or have been otherwise licensed in a way that's not too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes, these photos are going to need to be treated as non-free content. Now, there's a really good chance that the artwork has already entered into the public domain because of its age, but the photos themselves are most likely still under copyright protection and shouldn't be uploaded without first obtaining the photographer's (i.e. the copyright holder's) WP:PERMISSION. You can try asking for the copyright holder's WP:CONSENT if you want, but it seems kind of unlikely that will happen with respect to these photos given that the photographer is trying to sell copies of them via Alamy. It's also unlikely that the non-free use of these photos could be justified per WP:NFC#CS, WP:FREER and item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI since someone could take a similar new photo or even relicense a previously taken photo under a type of free license that Wikipedia accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you advise me where you feel the fair use rationale is (or was) failing for File:GA COHEN 1986.jpg please? Given what I've given -

Philosopher G.A. Cohen (deceased since 2009), screenshot image (published) in 1986 Episode of Opinions (TV series), broadcast on Channel 4 (Uk TV station) but the 1986 copyright resides (as per titles) with the production company PANOPTIC. No commercial value to sucj a screenshot image (professional portraits exist) and any residual commercial opportunities for PANOPTIC would be in selling rights to the episodes for broadcast or sale not small screenshots. One use only, small size, cropped, to identify deceased individual at top of their biographical page. No public domain or otherwise 'free' alternative found despite looking. No camera operator named, director: Stephen Lenhoff.

immediate source... etc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GA_COHEN_1986.jpg#Summary

I have further (a 2nd time) cropped and reduced it resolution, further (I think) than the bot would normally do.. is it ok now?

Thanks Jy Houston (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

any thoughts? (sorry if intervening edits by me have mucked up the comment system) Jy Houston (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jy Houston it's an okay rationale but you need to fill it out using Template:Non-free use rationale and add the article you want to add it to (G. A. Cohen) for the bot to recognise it. Cheers Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah right, no worries, cheers, thanks for your time Jy Houston (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jy Houston: This file was deleted per WP:CSD#F1 for being redundant to File:Philosopher G. A. Cohen in 1986.jpg. It's not clear why you felt it necessary to upload the same image twice but under a different file name, but generally this isn't a good idea. Perhaps you want to change the file name for some reason but didn't know how? If that's why, then that's OK; for future reference, though, request for file name changes can be made as explained in WP:File names without needing to delete and reupload the file. Finally, regarding the source for "File:Philosopher G. A. Cohen in 1986.jpg", the YouTube video you've cited shouldn't really be linked to per WP:COPYLINK and WP:YOUTUBE because the YouTube account which uploaded the video is almost certainly not the original copyright holder of the video in question. You probably should remove that link and instead use the original TV program the screenshot comes from as the source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advice, though the fair use summary was deemed fine I was told to upload the image via a separate process to stop it being removed by a bot, I'll try to avoid this difficultly in future, will remove the source URL as you suggest though it seems I'm explicitly asked for it Jy Houston (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

​ You should be OK citing the original TV show (and its official website if there is one) and then mention you found it on YouTube, but you probably shouldn't link to YouTube. As for someone telling you to reupload the file, then seems wrong to me. Do you remember who told you to do such a thing or where they posted that you do such a thing. The bot that was removing File:GA COHEN 1986.jpg from G. A. Cohen was doing so because the file didn't have a valid non-free use rationale for the file's use in that article, and all that needed to be done it that case was to add a valid non-free use rationale to the file's page; there was really no need to reupload the file under a different file name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly I told them above to use the non-free use rationale template, I just wasn't clear enough and they understood me to re-upload it. But it's all good now 😁 Yeshivish613 (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we include a screencap from one of Coca-Cola's AI holiday commercials or the infamous six-fingered Necroclaus loading screen from Black Ops 6 on the AI slop page under the in advertising and in video game section, or do these fall under copyright despite being generated by AI? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edelgardvonhresvelg. It isn't clear whether you're asking if you can upload and use such clips as non-free content or free content. Uploading and using them as non-free content should be fine as long as you're able to do so in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and Wikipedia's image use policy. Uploading and using them as free content, should be OK as long as you can do so in accordance with Wikipedia's image use policy.

Now, whether AI images are eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law, however, seems to largely depend on whether the AI is a 100% original random creation or involves some degree of creative input from whoever used AI to create the work; in addition, it could also depend on whether the AI work was a derivative work directly incorporating or closely based on some other creative work. My guess is that both Coca-Cola and the creators of Call of Duty are pretty aggressive when it comes to asserting their intellectual property rights and thus regularly register their works for copyright protection. There was also most likely quite a lot of creativity involved even if the final work was created using AI. So, it seems a bit unlikely that they wouldn't at least try to claim copyright authorship over such clips. Whether their claims would be legitimate is probably something a court would need to decide, which probably means its better to play it safe at treat the works as non-free.

Finally, although copyright status plays an important role it determining whether something can be uploaded and used on Wikipedia, there other things to consider as well. The image in question so also have encyclopedic value to Wikipedia readers (assuming you're asking about adding images to articles), and assessing that might require a separate discussion on the relevant articles talk page to determine whether adding the image to the article actually improves it encyclopedically. It could be the case that there's no consensus to use the image regardless of its copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking if the AI-generated images from the 2024 Coca-Cola Holiday ads and Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 fall under copyright due to being associated with brands despite being created by AI. There is a discussion on the AI slop talk page about this, and I was told to ask again here. We want to include the images to enhance the article to show visual examples of the AI slop in advertising (Coca-Cola) and video games (Black Ops 6). Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CHS Sports Logo.webp
I have no idea how to attribute copyright on this, It is used by the public high school for just about everything (See sources I've added in the info.) Gumby-andrit (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gumby-andrit you can probably make a fair use rationale for the logo. Use {{Non-free use rationale}} and fill it as best you can. Nthep (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gumby-andrit and Nthep: It's possible that this logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per c:COM:TOO US; generally, simple text logos are considered to be ineligible for copyright protection and, thus, can be licensed as {{PD-logo}} instead of {{Non-free logo}}. Although there's some 3D aspect to this logo, it seems (at least to me) a fairly simple combination of three letters and basic colors that has a wordmark kind of feel to it. If the consensus is that it does need to be treated as non-free, though, whether it's needed in the infobox of Cairo High School together with File:Cairo High School (Cairo, Georgia) (logo).png could be an issue with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy due to non-free content use criterion #1 and non-free content use criterion #3a. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's almost certainly ineligible for copyright protection in the US. All-text logos seem to be denied copyright registration almost ubiquitously, even those with custom fonts that can be quite complex. I've marked it as {{PD-textlogo}}. Ajpolino (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barnetts creek water bucket.webp This photo, I pulled from a local paper, which I thought was free use,
https://timesenterprise.com/2014/10/15/the-story-of-the-barnetts-creek-water-bucket/ Gumby-andrit (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gumby-andrit: you've got two copyrights to consider here. Firstly the bucket itself. It's possibly borderline if it's copyrightable or not. Does the plaque take it beyond utilitarian? Secondly, the copyright of the photograph. Even though the photo isn't credited, this is certainly still in copyright. Just because something is on the internet, doesn't make it fair game for use by anyone else. Yes, US copyright law allows for fair use but Wikipedia takes a much harder line on reusing images on fair use that the law. That's a deliberate policy to ensure as much Wikipedia content can be freely reused as possible. Nthep (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The plaque attached to it is a plaque of what High School had won the bucket (the bucket is a trophy between two schools on opposite side of the creek) Gumby-andrit (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gumby-andrit: The copyright status of the bucket/plaque is only one of the issues; the other has to do with the copyright status of the photo you linked to. As Nthep mentioned above, the bucket without the plaque would be something considered to be too utlilitarian (i.e. a common enough object to be absent any individual copyright eligible element) for it to be eligible for copyright protection, but the plaque could be something eligible for copyright protection depending upon its complexity of the imagery and text on it. If all that's on this particular plaque is simple factual information (a list of dates and names) and an image of a football, then it's most likely not eligible for copyright protection and can be freely photographed without worrying about infringing on any copyright; that, however, is just my opinion and others might feel differently. The photo, on the other hand, is definitely eligible for copyright protection and the copyright holder would be the person who took it. Wikipedia, therefore, is going to need some formal way of verify the WP:CONSENT (see also WP:PERMISSION) of whoever took the photo in order to keep this photo, or the copyright holder of the photo is going to need to otherwise release it under one of the free licenses that Wikipedia accepts. Since the newspaper article given as the source of the photo doesn't attributed it to anyone in particular, figuring out the photo's provenance might be a bit hard. Someone working for the paper could've taken it, someone working for the school could've taken it or someone totally unconnected to either could've taken it; regardless, someone did take it and that person's CONSENT needs to be verified. Perhaps the paper can tell you who took the photo. In certain cases, copyrighted photos can be treated as non-free content, but I don't believe this is one of them and a free license is going to be needed for the photo. If you're unable to obtain the copyright holder's consent for this particular photo, then perhaps there's another already existing photo of the bucket or a new photo can be taken for which copyright holder CONSENT can be obtained. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse § song sample durations. A new editor has questions about using a non-free audio sample at the It's My Life (Bon Jovi song) article. The discussion there would benefit from input from people familiar with explaining and evaluating the NFCC in relation to audio samples. Please respond there to keep discussion together. Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. (I think the answer to this is "No", but I did want to check!)

An author's website (based in the UK) contains publicity headshots [4]. I couldn't see an explicit copyright notice, either on the page or for the site generally. Can I upload one of the pictures to Commons or enwiki to illustrate Andy Shepherd (writer)? I think not, because absence of a copyright statement doesn't mean public domain, but I would be grateful for your insight. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SunloungerFrog. Given that Shepherd is alive, pretty much any type of non-free image of him/them isn't going to be allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy since non-free images of living people are almost never allowed because it's almost always considered reasonable for a freely licensed or public domain licensed image to either be found or created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one. In addition, most copyright laws worldwide no longer require copyright formalities (such a visible copyright notice) for photos, and copyright statrts to kick in once a photo has been published in some sort of tangible medium or is otherwise widely distributed; so, even though there might not be a visible notice for said photo, it's going to be assumed to be copyrighted unless it clearly states otherwise.

Finally, even though you didn't ask about this, File:Book cover - The Boy Who Grew Dragons by Andy Shepherd.jpg, which you also uploaded, also doesn't meet Wikipedia's non-free content use policy given the way it's being used in the Shepard article. Non-free book cover art is generally OK to be uploaded an used for primary identification purposes either at the top of or in the main infobox of a stand-alone article about the book the cover represents, but other types of non-free use tends to be much harder to justify per WP:NFC#cite_note-3. So, unless you're able to create a stand-alone article about the book itself (per WP:NBOOK) and move the file there, it's likely going to end up being tagged with {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} or nominated for deletion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Marchjuly. Subsequent to writing the article, I did wonder whether my use of the picture was pushing the envelope. I do plan to write an article in the next couple of days about the book series though per NBOOK, and was hoping to use that there, at which point I'll remove it from the Shepherd article. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]