Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

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

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

File:Aspects of twentieth century painting, 1963.pdf

Hi, This is a US publication, in the public domain due to lack of copyright notice, but it contains images of works of art from other countries, which are not in the public domain outside USA. For this reason, it is questioned on Commons. Would it be OK to move it on the English Wikipedia? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

World Heritage Site nomination

The application[1] to UNESCO by (it seems) the Canadian government, contains, at a minimum, a very useful map showing the wreck sites of interest in Red Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador. (Search for "27M" or "24M" in the document and you will get to the maps that show the locations of these wrecks, as well as other archaeological sites on land and the proposed heritage site boundary.) The copyright situation here is beyond me. Who would own any copyright, the authors or UNESCO? In whichever case applies, do they assert copyright (I cannot find the word copyright in the document) and if so, how long would that last? The actual entry on the UNESCO site[2] gives me (but perhaps not others) little clue on the copyright status of any of this stuff, though I have spotted the copyright symbol on photos on the UNESCO site. It also seems to give a link in to the pdf file mentioned above ("the application"), but with no copyright statement that I can find. Is this a Canadian government situation? Even if it is, I need a bit of help on this.

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Sosumi sound file

Sosumi ("so, sue me") is a half-second sound file, once used in Apple OS as a bleep sound. It has been uploaded to Enwiki at File:Sosumi.mp3 with a "Trademark" tag (originally a different tag). The uploader User:Jibblesnark86 and myself would like clarity if this is permissible, and what kind of tag should it have. Thank you. I think the uploader doesn't want to be sued! -- GreenC 15:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Since no-one else answered so far, maybe my non-answer can generate some form of discussion: This could be below the US threshold of originality, but unfortunately I am not familiar with any example of the threshold of originality of sounds. The quickest of searches does not unearth any relevant Commons discussions either, but there may well be something there that my search terms didn't catch. Felix QW (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the feedback. That rationale might be included in the fair use. Assuming User:Jibblesnark86 still wants to go for it as the uploader. -- GreenC 17:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Karl Marx, The Story of His Life (first edition).jpg

As far as I can see, this file is not copyrighted in any way. Mehring died 1919, the book was published 1918. So this looks like public domain. Am I right?

I can't manage to export it to commons. Can anyone please help me? Thanks, --Dick Bos (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dick Bos. File:Karl Marx, The Story of His Life (first edition).jpg is going to need to be PD or otherwise freely licensed in both the US (where the Commons servers are located) and Germany (the likely country of first publication) in order for Commons to host this file. Given the publication date of the book, this probably is PD in Germany per c:COM:Germany, but which of the licenses mentioned on the Commons page about Germany should be used is unclear (at least to me). So, you might want to ask about this at c:COM:VPC to try to narrow down which license fits best.

Since you didn't scan the cover yourself, and there's no url provided as the source, you might want to double check via Google Images or something similar that the cover is really the cover of the first edition. The quick check I did shows that the book has been republished several times over the years with different covers, and if even the version uploaded to Wikipedia seems to come in different colors. Unfortunately, the uploader of the file won't be able to help you there; so, you're kind of on your own.

Once you know the cover is correct and which license to use, you can then do one of the following: (1) download this local file to your computer and reupload it to Commons under said license; (2) replace the file's non-free licensing with a PD one, replace the file's non-free use rationale with {{Information}} and tag the file with {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} for someone else to move; or (3) find a better cleaner higher resolution of the same cover art, upload that one to Commons, replace the non-free one with it in the article about the book, and then tag the no longer being used non-free one with {{Orfud}} so that it ends up deleted per WP:F5 or with {{Now Commons}} so that it ends up being deleted per WP:F8. If you opt for (2), you could even possibly request that the older originally uploaded version (deleted per WP:F5) be restored via WP:REFUND so that's the one that ends up being moved instead. In addition, since the German copyright licenses used on Commons won't likely work here on Wikipedia, you might need to temporarly use something like {{PD-old-auto}} together with {{PD-US-expired}} when converting the file from non-free to PD until the file has been moved to Commons and then change the licensing to the better German copyright one after the move. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive answer! I appreciate this very much. I'll try to find some time soon to work through all your suggestions and advices. For now many greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Troom Troom logos

Both File:Troom Troom (main logo).webp and File:Troom Troom (Ukranian version).jpg were uploaded as non-free without non-free use rationales; so, they've been tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F6. Since they're essentially the same logo with just a different color scheme, both files aren't really needed per WP:NFCC#3a. However, the logo design itself seems too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per c:COM:TOO US, and, at least in my opinion, can be converted to a PD license.

The "problem", though, is that it's not clear which country should be considered the country of first publication/origin. The article Troom Troom states it is for a "multi-national YouTube channel" but doesn't state where those who created the channel are based out of. Converting this file to {{PD-logo}} would make sense if US is the country of origin, but I don't know how to verify that. Converting the file to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} would makes sense if a country with a lower TOO than the US is the country of origin, but (once again) I don't know how to verify that. Is it safe to assume that because YouTube itself is based out of the US that the country of first publication should also be the US? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Footage of George Hackenschmidt

Footage of the professional wrestler George Hackenschmidt from 1908 has been discovered: https://www.ngataonga.org.nz/search-use-collection/search/F18094/. Given its age, is this public domain? Could it be uploaded to Commons? It is an important piece of professional wrestling history and would be good to have on Wikipedia if possible. McPhail (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@McPhail presumably this is the match between Hackenschmidt and Rogers fought in London in February 1908? Is there any indication of who made the film, and when and where, if ever, it has ever been shown (published)? Nthep (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a bit of a write-up on the origins here. As you say it is the 1908 London match. The filming was done by the "Charles Urban Trading Company". McPhail (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@McPhail ah, great, so we know it's been screened somewhere, contemporaneously. We have an article on Charles Urban from which we know he was based in London. If this became a newsreel that made its way to New Zealand its very likely to have been screened in the UK and is therefore PD in its country of origin. Due to its age its also PD in the US, which is needed for this to be uploaded to Commons. The only fly in the ointment is the presence of the ngatonga logo which is copyrighted. What is needed is an un-logoed copy. If there's no un-logoed copy, there are no problems with linking to the ngatonga copy. Nthep (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I have had a look at English papers and can see that the Bioscope newsreel of the fight was shown as early as March 1908 in the UK, so it's PD in the UK. Nthep (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Member badge

I received a notice from Iruka13 regarding the image of a pin I had scanned, cleaned up, reduced and then uploaded. May I ask that one of the copyright experts help me understand this?

The image in question is File:The badge of the Wolf's Head Society.png. The comment was that it may fail the first non-free content criterion.

I believe this usage is supportable under fair use. Would someone help me clarify the license statement here, or explain how my thinking is wrong? The salient points are:

1. The original gold badge was designed and created circa 1883.
2. By the time this particular badge was made, several hundred had been cast, and distributed to members.
3. The description from the source of the photo of the badge indicates it was awarded to a Yale student and member of this society in 1936. Logically, the badge was made prior to his initiation date.
4. I assume the photo itself was taken in November of 2021, by a local paper, according to the source of the photo.
5. Members of the Fraternity and Sorority Project group have searched for online examples of this pin, and this is the only one we have found. Hence, no free alternative is known at this writing.
6. The badge is discussed within the Symbolism section of the article, as is standard for similar articles where we have uploaded photos of other badges.
7. I have adjusted the color, saturation and contrast of the photo significantly, also cropped the original photo and have reduced it in size by approximately 80% from the original. Do these adjustments take it out of copyright, as the image has been 'artistically adjusted' and made substantially smaller?

Does the copyright concern here have to do with the Original badge, with the specific casting of this badge (1936), or use of the photo from 2021? Jax MN (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The original design of the item is obviously in the public domain. So to get a freely licensed photo, you have to take one. What's stopping you from taking one? — Ирука¹³ 08:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not have this badge in my possession. Nor do any of the pin collectors with whom I have discussed this item. This particular badge is thus fairly difficult to find, yet we know that some thousand or so exist. So rather than taking a photo, I artistically adjusted the photo I found via a web search.

From which of the three dates would we calculate copyright for this situation? From 1883, or from 1936, or from 2021? Jax MN (talk) 09:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Because it is a photo of a three-dimensional object, the 2021 photo will remain under copyright until long after you and I are deceased. None of the changes you made will affect the fact that such revised versions are derivative works from a very copyrighted image. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for responding. This is a serious inquiry, and I'll stipulate that you likely know more about copyright rules here on Wikipedia than I do. Would you explain further? We use the carve-out that a single image (logo, coat-of-arms or pin image) may be used in the infobox, low-res, as an identifier of an organization. We make diligent efforts to ensure there is no commercial viability for the JPG or PNG we upload, vis-a-vis the the original work. Thousands of these have now been uploaded, and approved by administrators. Secondarily, our standard infobox has optional parameters that give room for a thumbnail image of a member badge and/or pledge pin, also in the infobox. These are uploaded IF their symbolism is discussed in the body text, as a visual aid to that discussion. The Upload File genie has a standard pathway for this kind of usage. We typically find our source images from organizational history books, the societies themselves, or as images that online merchants provide. None of these vendors have ever complained about this, as our efforts arguably help them in promoting membership or the collection or sale of such antique pins. The vast majority of the original pin castings were designed prior to 1924 but later photographs and printed images may have been made after that year. Again, the organizations (fraternities) themselves routinely welcome our use of these images on articles about their groups.

After cropping, color-correcting, fixing inadvertent artifacts, flattening, and after we make significant reductions in size to result in images that are always <100KB, I ask, are works such as the resultant photo of the Wolf's Head pin sufficiently distinct from the original that they are allowable here? Over a decade and a half, several thousand of these have been approved by admins. Across our Project usage, these appear to have no commercial viability, in comparison to the original sources. Jax MN (talk) 19:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

As explained by Orange Mike, the item in question can be PD but whoever took the image will still hold the copyright of the image. I've reverted my edits to pictures of such pins. An alternative will be to contact the fraternities for them to take a picture of their pin and license them as a CC file so the file can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for use on other Wikipedias as well. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Question: if the photo was taken by staff of federal or otherwise governmental museum or library, wouldn't that image be usable? Rublamb (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rublamb: If the photo was taken by an employee of the US federal government as part of their official duties, and whatever was photographed was not independently eligible for copyright protection, then most like such a photo would be fine. The same, however, can't necessarily be said for state, county, city or other sub-federal level government officials since copyright laws at the state and under level can vary (sometimes quite a bit). The same can't also be said for countries other than the US because copyright laws can vary quite a bit from country to country. Finally, a distinction is made with respect to "official duties" even for federal employees; for example, working for the federal government doesn't make everything one posts on one's personal social media accounts or personal websites public domain. In the same manner, content created by others who aren't federal employees or wasn't part of their "official duties" if they are that's hosted on US federal government websites or social media accounts isn't necessarily public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Metal craft

I received a notice from Iruka13 regarding the image of a craft of our National Living Treasure awardee Eduardo Mutuc I had scanned, cleaned up, reduced and then uploaded. May I ask that one of the copyright experts help me understand this? very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC).

Photos of three-dimensional objects are subject to copyright. Unless you took that photo yourself and are licensing it under a Creative Commons license, your modifications are derivative works which still violate the copyright of the photographer. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@13 and @Talk Good afternoon Related question with my certification; please allow me to certify and state that the subject Mutuc photo I took is just one of the displayed actual works like Ikam Marife Ganahon Malaybalay Higaonon Manobo mats of Manlilikha ng Bayan (translation, National Living Treasures) or GAMABA National Living Treasures signage at the entrance of SM Megamall Megatrade Hall - inside thereat are the temporary museums of the open cabinets with translucent yellow gold walls encasing the crafts, including metalwork of the National Living Treasure Awardees; NOTE that all the displays encased in the open cabinets are the NCCA's objects kept in its Museum in Intramuros, brought at the fair for temporary views; Eduardo Mutuc's Pukpuk pilak is a metal craft encased in the open cabinet, which I took picture of, with my own camera as my own work; I edited, cropped it, appearing therefore that it is a picture within a picture; I would like to ask therefore, what other or any tag or license should I put in the description; accordingly I edited it changing the tag to Licensing self cc-by-sa-4.0, am I correct or do I have to change my edit, thank you very much very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC).

Who currently holds the copyright to the design of the pukpuk pilak you photographed? — Ирука¹³ 11:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@13 pukpuk pilak was or is a work of silver plating metalsmith National Living Treasure awardee Eduardo Mutuc from his house-cum shop at Barangay Tabuyuc, Apalit, Pampanga; I just passed by his residence here 3rd Candaba Viaduct in September 22, 2024; I never knew that he has his shop hereat since he is practically unknown at the area; he was bestowed the gold medallion award in 2004 and simultaneously, his subject herein work was donated by him to the government NCCA's museum collection object in Intramuros. The Copyright law of the Philippines provides for protection of his moral right except if it is transferred to any person or entity. Either the NCCA or Mutuc hold the copyright to the pukpuk pilak. The only way to know that is to ask the NCCA, or Mutuc himself. It is easier if I drop by his house if I have time to raise the copyright holder issue. Therefore, I have no objection to any deletion thereof, since I cannot answer fair and square the question of who holds the copyright, thank you very much very truly yours Valenzuela400 (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC).

Song lyrics translations

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

The way that could make sense apparently would be if Tamtam90 is С. Павлов. If so, the user could provide evidence to VRT. The vague reference to a discussion on Wikidata is not linked. A search did not find something like that there. However, there is something on Wikisource [3]. Not sure why the person who spotted the problem seemed to leave it there. Notifying User:Vladis13: can you please bring some light on this matter? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Can I upload this Image?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/52635557396 , I uploaded it as File:Ajay Mathur, Former Director-General, International Solar Alliance (ISA).jpg but it got tagged. Can this image still be used for that I have mis tagged its copyright status which really is CC BY-NC-SA 2.0? ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 05:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@ExclusiveEditor: Creative Commons licenses that prohibit commercial reuse ("NC" licenses) or derivative use ("ND") licenses are too restrictive for Wikipedia's purposes; therefore, images released under such licenses need to be treated as non-free content. Given that non-free images of living people are pretty much never allowed per WP:FREER and item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, a non-free image of Ajay Mathur is not going to be allowed. What you could try is to contact whoever controls that Flickr page and and ask something like what's explained here or here, and maybe they will change the license to something that's OK for Wikipedia; otherwise, I think there's zero chance of a consensus at WP:FFD ever being established to allow this image to be used as non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding a picture to a new article

Hi, I wrote the article: H. Karl Butler - Wikipedia I would like to add a picture of Karl Butler. My sources say it is just over 100 years old. This is what is left of my attempt. File:Merrill Butler (l), H. Karl Butler (c), and David Atwater (r) (circa 1923).jpg - Wikipedia I volunteer at the Camp Manatoc Museum. Our curator who is most knowledgeable about our local history is certain that the photograph was either taken in 1922 (during the summer when the camp was being developed) or in 1923 (during the first year of the camp). (Karl Butler died in 1926.) We do not know who the photographer was. It seems likely that the photographer died more than 70 years ago (which I was told is a magic number). The first editor I worked with thought I could use it under fair use even if I can't offer concrete proof that it is over 100 years old. We are talking about a photograph (one on display at the museum), not a published image. I have another photo I could use. Again, it is just a photograph that is on display in the museum and not from a published source. The description in the museum says it was taken in 1924. It is a summer picture, so it is just over 100 years old. My fellow curators were supportive of me writing the article and agree with me using the pictures. Can I please get some help on how to get one or both into the article? One of the talking points on Karl Butler is he was disabled, he could not run and play with other boys when he was growing up, yet as an adult, he was incredibly supportive of local boys. I want to show a picture that conveys a hint of his disability. Thank you so much! Warren OA17151104 (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@OA17151104 as the image is from the US, 70 years isn't quite the magic number it would be if we were in another country. What we are interested in are authorship and first publication. I quite understand if this anonymous, it looks like a snap taken of three friends hanging out together, nothing fancy or posed and very unlikely to have been registered for copyright. The thornier question is previous publication. Is it just a snapshot or did it get used in a local paper, for example. If it turns out that the photo has just been languishing in a drawer for the last 100 years, then it is still going to be in copyright until 120 years from creation. If you can find a positive answer to either question then the whole situation changes.

For the time being, we can rely on fair-use (as per your upload) assuming there are no public domain images of Butler in existence. Are there any? Nthep (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep:

Thank you so much for the prompt response. I have been told that Mr. Butler hated having his picture taken (perhaps because of his disability). I have been told that there are very few pictures of him in existence. Unfortunately, (since one cannot prove the negative), I have no proof that either image was never published. We have the two pictures that I mentioned in the museum as part of a fairly large display devoted to Karl Butler. He is also in a large group shot that would not work for my purposes. I don't think there are any more pictures. I can't imagine that there are some other public domain images. I'm sorry, but I know so little about image copyright issues, I don't know what else to say. Thanks! Warren OA17151104 (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@OA17151104 Depending on your point of view, there's some good news and some bad news. The good news is that I've found a public domain image of Butler. The bad news is that this invalidates the current non-free rationale for the image you uploaded. I say current as rationale's can be altered. You said that one of the reasons you want to use the image is to illustrate Butler's disability. That's a entirely reasonable objective and you've said above " One of the talking points on Karl Butler is he was disabled". To justify continued use of the image it really needs sourced critical commentary about his disability and how it affected his life and works. At the moment I don't see anything like that in the article. Yes, there's mention of his disability but nothing about it's influences on his life and certainly not enough to justify the use of the photo. Nthep (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep:

Thank you again for your help in getting this all done correctly and conforming to standards. I must plea ignorance about much of this process as this is my first Wikipedia article. Now all that said, what image did you find? The head shot from here (supposed to be a paste of a URL)? The Story of Camp Manatoc, 1931 - Akron Beacon Journal Photograph Collection - Summit Memory (Why won't URLs appear when I paste them in here?) Sorry, I knew about that head shot but did not think to mention it because it did not look like a man with a disability. To me, the key point is not how Butler's disabilities affected his life. The key point is how much good he did in spite of his disabilities. The disabilities did not stop him from leading a full, albeit short, life. The camp that he started is thriving to this day almost 100 years after his death. Furthermore, I wanted to tell the story of the origin of the camp. If I can't have a picture of him in the article, so be it. If I can with a different justification or a minor rewording, that is fine. However, I don't want this article to read or emphasize "Oh, look at that poor disabled man." I want it to read "Wow! What a great and generous man who overcame disabilities, and what a great story about the start of Camp Manatoc." Again, I appreciate your diligence in helping me get this all done correctly. Warren OA17151104 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nthep:

I see that you swapped out the picture. Can you please remove it? I would much rather have no picture than that picture. Thanks! OA17151104 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@OA17151104: Generally, we try to do what's best for Wikipedia when it comes to things Wikipedia even if sometimes that's not what we'd rather do. Copyright concerns are of primary importance when it comes to image use on Wikipedia, but encyclopedic considerations do matter too. When there are disagreements over the use of an image when there are no copyright concerns per se, things pretty much need to be resolved through article talk page discussion much like would be expected for disagreements over textual content. While File:H Karl Butler.jpg currently being used in H. Karl Butler is probably not the best possible one that could be found, the fact that it's a public domain image and also seems reasonable enough (at least to me) for Wikipedia's encyclopedic purposes probably are good reasons to continue using it as opposed to using no image at all. Of course, a similarly licensed but better image (if found) might be a suitable replacement, but perhaps it's best to leave things as they are until such a time. One thing you could try is to ask for assistance at c:COM:GL/P to see whether someone there might be able to enhance or cleanup the image a bit. Maybe Nthep could do that since they uploaded the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Lehman-Tunnell Mansion.jpg

I don't think File:Lehman-Tunnell Mansion.jpg is licensed correctly. The source provided for the file isn't a US government website but rather a State of Wyoming website. The photo is also attributed to a Gladys B. Berry, but there's nothing stating that the photographer is an employee of the US federal government. Given that Wyoming isn't one of the US states which place works created by its employees as part of their official duties into the public domain,I'm not sure this should be kept as licensed, and it might not even be kept at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Right. Please create a deletion request. Yann (talk) 09:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: Wikipedia doesn't really have a DR set up any more like Commons; there's WP:FFD for files, but that's technically Files For Discusion. Of course, one of the outcomes of an FFD can be to delete, but I'm wondering (given your experience as a Commons admin) if there's a way this could be PD, just not for the reason given. The uploader is a student editor and probably isn't too familiar with image copyright. They uploaded the same file to Commons under a different name. If there's a way to keep that file, then this one could be speedily deleted per WP:F8 without any need for discussion. Similarly, if the Commons file ends up being speedily deleted, this one most likely could also be speedily deletion for the same reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: This is a relatively recent picture (1981), so it is most probably under a copyright. According to c:Commons:Hirtle chart, the only possibility that it would be in the public domain is Published without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years. We need to know the publication history, and I don't know how such a registration was done, and can be checked, so I can't say more than that. Yann (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Yann. That's kind of what I thought as well. For reference, though, the uploader of the file included this link in one of their edit summaries, and I believe that's what they're basing the {{PD-USGOV}} claim on; the site that's linked to, however, says its images are publicly available but I don't think that means within the public domain. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: FYI I nominated it for deletion on Commons: c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lehman-Tunnell Mansion from E. Grand Ave.jpg. Yann (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Gil Hill in Beverly Hills Cop (1984).webp

File:Gil Hill in Beverly Hills Cop (1984).webp was uploaded as non-free content but the uploader didn't provide the file with a non-free use rationale. The file is also currently not being used, but I'm guess it was uploaded for use in the main infobox of Gil Hill. The source for given for the file The New York Times but I'm not a subscriber. When I try to check the source, I can only see the page for a few seconds before it gets hidden behind a banner asking me to subscribe. I think the photo is a publicity still from Paramount Pictures taken during the shooting of the first Beverly Hill Cop film but can if there's anything other attribution for the photo to something like Getty Images. Given the supposed date of the photo and how some film studios seem to have a tendency to not be thorough when it comes publicity stills and copyright formalities, I thought there might be a possibility this could be {{PD-US-1989}}; so, I didn't go ahead and add a non-free use rationale for its use "Gil Hill" myself. FWIW, the same photo can be seen here and it's attributed to Paramount; there's a copyright notice but it's not on the photo itself. The same photo can also be seen here, and this version is clearly marked as copyrighted on the photo itself; so, I'm pretty sure this photo needs to be treated as non-free.

I also found some other images of Hill online which might also be PD-US-1989. For example, this 1984 photo doesn't have a visible copyright notice on the front, but the link for the back of the photo isn't working for me. The same site also has this any of and this, but there is either no link to the back of the photo or it's not working.

Given that any photo taken on or after March 1, 1989, most likely needs to be treated as non-free, I'm wondering whether the earlier ones I found can be treated as PD. If not, then maybe the best thing to do is just to add non-free use rationale for the already uploaded file's use in "Gil Hill". -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Given that we do not know what the back of the publicity photos look like, we need to assume that they are copyrighted. I looked for other photos of Gil Hill, but cannot find any that are freely licensed, so the best course of action is to add a non-free usage rationale. If we can establish that one of the publicity photos is free in the future, the non-free image can be replaced then. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Whpq. I've added a non-free use rationale for Gil Hill to the file's page; feel free to correct any mistakes I might've made. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Gil Hill In Beverly Hills Cop II (1987).webm is another file uploaded by the same user, but this time under a CC license which almost certainly wrong. I can't think of any possible way to justify converting this as non-free per WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3 or WP:NFCC#8; so, I've tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F9. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Album artwork

There are thousands of album artwork images throughout Wikipedia. In particular, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Wee_Small_Hours contains this image: Wee_small_hours_album_cover_high_definition.jpg

I copied it to another article that mentioned that album, but a bot came along and removed it. See this diff: [4]

Is this a mistake on the part of the bot, or am I missing something? Why is it a violation on one article and not on another?

Thanks. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Each and every usage of a non-free image like this album cover requires a specific and separate non-free usage rationale. The bot removed the image because there is no rationale for its use in the List of common misconceptions article. You could add a non-free usage rationale to cover this usage, but it must meet all of the the non-free content criteria. I doubt very much that it would meet the contextual significance require by WP:NFCC#8. See also WP:NFLIST. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

In other words, it's (usually) okay to use an image of an album cover in the article about that album, but using it in an article about something else is a much higher bar. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair use supercell image

I recently created the article June 2022 Chicago supercell and was wondering if I could plausibly upload this striking image taken from inside the storm as an NFF. There is one video on the page of the storm from space, however this is a more visible and closer view of the storm that may fall under non-free criteria. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

What exactly would the purpose of the image be, and how is that purpose distinguished from available free media? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

To illustrate the structure of the storm over Chicago. All existing media is taken from NEXRAD radar imagery or space, but the supercell was especially notable for its height, and a visual of the structure may help illustrate that. Departure– (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask before I misuse fair use - do I have a good fair-use argument to use this image? The main concern is that there's also free media of the storm from space, but none from the ground, nor from the air. This is a closer view at the storm structure that I feel is inadequately described by the space and radar views. Departure– (talk) 14:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Departure–: An important thing to remember is that fair use and non-free content are not really the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia's non-free content use policy was set intentionally set up to be more restrictive than fair use. What I think Red-tailed hawk is referring to above are WP:FREER and WP:NFC#CS. There are ten criteria that each use of a non-free file needs to satisfy for it to be considered valid, and failing even one of these means the use is not OK. If the particular image you want to upload has itself been been discussed in reliable sources when they talked about the supercell or is regularly cited as the "one" image that shows by reliable sources as showing all the things you say it shows, then perhaps an argument could be made for its non-free use. On the other hand, there are several other images available which could possibly show the same thing or which have been used by reliable sources discussing the supercell, the non-free use of this particular one becomes harder to justify.

Given that the National Weather Service is part of the US federal government and the works created by US federal government employees as part of their official duties are considered to be public domain (ineligible for copyright protection), it seems reasonable to expect that their might be other photos of the supercell taken by NWS employees which are within the public domain and would be preferred to any non-free photo. Can you find out more about the provenance of the photo taken by Eileen Murray? For example, it she works for the NWS and took the photo while doing her job, then it could possibly be OK to license as c:Template:PD-USGov-NWS-employee and upload to Wikimedia Commons because its within the public domain; if, however, Eileen Murray just happened to by riding in an airplane and took a personal photo, she would be its copyright owner. In the latter case, WP:CONSENT would be needed for the photo to not be considered non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm avoiding the entire concept of using this as a free image. Wikiproject Weather was nearly torn apart by the concept, so I'm playing it hyper-safe by forcing this to either be non-free or not used at all. As far as I know, there are no NWS employee-produced images of the storm and finding whether one took a photo while in their duties with the NWS is significantly easier said than done. Departure– (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Wicked Theme re-usage in As Long As You're Mine

New to this but, Could I undo this bot edit if I added something like

• Source: As Long As You're Mine

{{Non-free use rationale
|Description=The [[opening]] bars of the [[overture]] of the [[Musical theatre|musical]] [[Wicked (musical)|Wicked]]
|Source=The [[Wicked (musical album)|original Broadway cast recording]]
|Article=As Long As You're Mine
|Portion=First 34 seconds of a 413-second piece
|Low_resolution=Lower than original
|Purpose=To support analytical discussion of the chord progression which features in the opening bars, and to note the use of the same theme later in the musical in the song ''[[As Long As You're Mine]]''
|Replaceability=No free alternative available, impossible to achieve the same effect without an audio sample
|other_information=
}}

to File:Wicked_overture.ogg#Summary ? -Bogger (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but at the moment the article on the song doesn't contain any discussion of the chord progression, which the clip is supposed to be supporting. So the rationale fails WP:NFCC#8. Nthep (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this change adequate? -Bogger (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Florida-Wildlife-Corridor-Map-Corridor-Conserved-Opportunity-Protection-Priorities-1.pdf

I would like some opinions on the licensing of File:Florida-Wildlife-Corridor-Map-Corridor-Conserved-Opportunity-Protection-Priorities-1.pdf. If it's truly {{PD-text}}, then permission of the creator doesn't seem to be needed, and there's no need to attribute them as the creator. At the same time, if permission of the creator is needed and the creator needs to be attributed, this can't really be licensed as PD. Should VRT verification be required for this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It is obviously not PD-text. Also it is missing evidence for the permission. I do not know what the relations are between those entities, but given that the work is by A. Meeks at Archbold Biological Station, that is probably where the permission should come from. Notifying Artemis127. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I received permission from the foundation it was created for via email from the Community and Engagement Manager Avery Palmer. I'm not sure how I would provide the evidence but Angeline Meeks made a series of maps for the Florida Wildlife Corridor Foundation and that's where they are featured. I have also reached out to Ms.Meeks herself. Ms.Palmer clarified that they are publicly accessible and there is no copyright information on the map itself. I included the credits as it made sense to connect the wiki page to the foundation. Artemis127 (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I asked Angeline Meeks the cartographer specifically about the copyright and she reiterated they are free to use with the appropriate credits. Artemis127 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Artemis127: What you're posting makes it seem as if Angela Meeks gave you permission to use the image on Wikipedia. That's fine for you, but insufficient for Wikipedia licensing purposes. What Wikipedia is going to need is some way of formally verifying Meeks' consent and the easiest way for that to happen is probably going to be to ask Meeks to send a WP:CONSENT email to the Wikimedia Volunteer Response Team (VRT). Basically, what Wikipedia needs to verify is whether Meeks is giving permission to everyone in the world to download the file from Wikipedia at anytime and reuse for any purpose (including commercial reuse and derivative use) without needing to specifically ask for it each time. Meeks can specify attribution as one of the conditions for reuse, but Meeks can't specify things like "educational use only", "non-commercial use only", "Wikipedia use only", etc. because such things are too restrictive for Wikipedia.

What you're posting also doesn't make much sense given that you've licensed the file as {{PD-text}}. Images licensed in such a way are things that aren't considered to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law because they don't reach the level of creativity needed for such copyright protection. So, in other words, there's nothing to protect and thus nothing to require attribution for. Permission and attribution would only be necessary if Meeks is claiming copyright ownership over the map.

FWIW, the raw factual data used for the map certainly could be ineligible for copyright protection depending on how it was gathered, selected or arranged. The outline of the State of Florida, the place names and the coloring are almost certainly ineligible for copyright protection. However, when you combine all of these individual elements together into an interpretative visual representation, that visual representation itself could be considered eligible for copyright protection independently of the individual elements as explained in c:COM:CB#Maps and satellite imagery; in other words, the map could be greater than the sum of its individual parts from a copyright standpoint. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no copyright on the map. I wanted to verify before I added it which is why I contacted the cartographer and the foundation. Special permission was not granted to me, more so they confirmed anyone who was looking to use it would be able to. What license would you recommend for a free use, publicly accessible, non copyrighted map? Thanks! Artemis127 (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There is copyright on the map. Any creative work attracts a copyright by default.

The usual recommended free licence for copyrighted works that we use and recommend on Wikipedia is the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 licence. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Artemis127: Just going to add that "publicly accessible" doesn't mean public domain. Pretty much everything found on the Internet could be considered "publicly accessible" and much of it can be downloaded, printed out or whatever at no cost. "Freely available", however, doesn't mean "free from copyright protection". Under current US copyright law, visible copyright notices and other copyright formalities are no longer required for a work to be eligible for copyright protection. As long as the work meets the requirements for copyright eligibility, it's considered automatically protected unless it's creator explicitly states they've released it into the public domain. So, nobody other that the creator of the work can decide how to license it, and you need to ask the work's creator to find that out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Vogue Taiwan reposting Vogue content with CC BY license

Hi, File:Charli XCX in 2024 for Vogue Magazine "In My Bag".jpg comes from this youtube video posted by Vogue Taiwan, with a CC BY license. The original video was posted by Vogue Britain, who did the interview, without a CC license. In this case, is the Vogue Taiwan notice sufficient to make this a free image? Alyo (chat·edits) 19:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to add some context, here's a prior discussion on Wikimedia Commons in 2021 about the same issue: [5] and a template edit in 2022 reaffirming that Vogue Taiwan is a valid subsidiary of Conde Nast. [6]

I'm paging editor User:SNUGGUMS as he was in some of those 2021 discussions and has more experience with the Vogue Taiwan copyright thing than I do; I was under the guise that it was common for a long period on Wikimedia Commons. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

As recently as 2022, Vogue Taiwan images have been deemed valid at Wikimedia Commons. [7] PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Found a more recent discussion on Wikimedia Commons from August 2024 regarding a file that was gotten off Vogue Taiwan's YouTube channel. [8] @Alyo: PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm paging User:GRuban who is a license reviewer on Commons who has dealt with Vogue Taiwan images before and was mentioned in the previous deletion discussions on Commons. I do not have much experience looking through Commons deletion request archives; hopefully someone who is more familiar on that may help in this discussion here on enwiki. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Additional context I think is also important for this particular case, is that the YouTube video in question is not actually a direct repost of the Vogue Britain video, but clips of the video. Vogue Taiwan also posted the video in its entirety, but did not provide that video with a CC license. The sources for these clips, both from Vogue Britain and Taiwan, do not have a CC license. RedBaron12 (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If Conde Nast owns the copyright to the full video regardless, what is exactly stopping them from only releasing parts of it as CC, though?

Everything from either British Vogue, American Vogue or Vogue Taiwan is still under Conde Nast's copyright. Given that we are only looking for static images and not full videos, I think that's a net positive in my opinion. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Even when Condé Nast is in fact Vogue Taiwan's parent corporation, the problem with extracting images here is the video in question doesn't provide any license or other indication that people can freely take screenshots of it to be posted elsewhere. I therefore would not endorse keeping the uploaded file. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I was pinged. So:

• The video in question is clearly marked "License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" (click the "more" link on the linked page to unfold that link; it goes to https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797468 which references https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode). This obviously includes "screenshots" since if we are allowed to freely edit and repost the whole video, we can clearly edit it down to part of one frame.
• The Youtube Vogue Taiwan account is 14 years old and has 1.1 million subscribers, this is not a fly-by-night account. It is extremely unlikely that the parent Vogue company is unaware they have been posting these videos for the last 14 years, and marking many of them Creative Commons Attribution. This is known as apparent authority; we have every reason to believe they are, in fact, empowered to mark them in this way.
• They are also not marking videos Creative Commons Attribution indiscriminately, for example one video just posted yesterday was not so marked.
• Wikimedia Commons has 861 images in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Screenshot_images_from_VOGUE_Taiwan_YouTube_account so there is a noticeable precedent here, and while this consensus can change as much on Commons as on the EN Wikipedia, I'm fairly certain that it is unlikely to.

In short, I marked the image in question Commons:License reviewed. Thank you all. --GRuban (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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