Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:MCQ)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Media copyright questions

Welcome to the Media Copyright Questions page, a place for help with image copyrights, tagging, non-free content, and related questions. For all other questions please see Wikipedia:Questions.

How to add a copyright tag to an existing image
  1. On the description page of the image (the one whose name starts File:), click Edit this page.
  2. From the page Wikipedia:File copyright tags, choose the appropriate tag:
    • For work you created yourself, use one of the ones listed under the heading "For image creators".
    • For a work downloaded from the internet, please understand that the vast majority of images from the internet are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. Exceptions include images from flickr that have an acceptable license, images that are in the public domain because of their age or because they were created by the United States federal government, or images used under a claim of fair use. If you do not know what you are doing, please post a link to the image here and ask BEFORE uploading it.
    • For an image created by someone else who has licensed their image under the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, or has released their image into the public domain, this permission must be documented. Please see Requesting copyright permission for more information.
  3. Type the name of the tag (e.g.; {{GFDL-self}}), not forgetting {{ before and }} after, in the edit box on the image's description page.
  4. Remove any existing tag complaining that the image has no tag (for example, {{untagged}})
  5. Hit Publish changes.
  6. If you still have questions, go on to "How to ask a question" below.
How to ask a question
  1. To ask a new question hit the "Click here to start a new discussion" link below.
  2. Please sign your question by typing ~~~~ at the end.
  3. Check this page for updates, or request to be notified on your talk page.
  4. Don't include your email address, for your own privacy. We will respond here and cannot respond by email.
Note for those replying to posted questions

If a question clearly does not belong on this page, reply to it using the template {{mcq-wrong}} and, if possible, leave a note on the poster's talk page. For copyright issues relevant to Commons where questions arising cannot be answered locally, questions may be directed to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Vintage cigarette commercials[edit]

UCSF Tobacco Industry Videos has a lot of cigarette commercials at Many may be in the public domain. It says it is in the "Public Domain". It says "Public Domain Mark 1.0".

I would like to check if these two videos are actually in the public domain. If they are I would like them both uploaded. QuackGuru (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think both can be uploaded. See {{PD-US-no-notice}}. QuackGuru (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Diane Ellingson Smith Infobox Photo[edit]

I'd like to upload a photo to the English Wikipedia that fits all ten of the non-free use criteria, but I'm not sure how the Summary should look. Going off of all the applicable instructions I could find, here's what I've come up with, but I'm not sure what descriptions should go with the different categories, where the permission tags should go, etc.:

|description={{en|1=[[:en:Diane Ellingson Smith at 2002 Winter Olympics Torch Relay]]}}
|author=Tom Smart
|permission={{Non-free biog-pic}}{{Non-free Olympics media}}
{{Non-free use rationale 2
<!--Obligatory fields-->
| Description    = Diane Ellingson Smith at 2002 Winter Olympics Torch Relay
| Author         = Tom Smart
| Source         =
| Article        = Diane Ellingson Smith
| Purpose        = infobox
| Replaceability = What goes here?
| Minimality     = What goes here?
| Commercial     = What goes here?
<!--Optional/expert fields-->
| Date                =
| Publication         =
| Replaceability_text =
| Other information   =

=== Fair use for image in [[Diane Ellingson Smith]] ===
This image fits all ten of Wikipedia's non-free criteria, because:
# There's no free equivalent.
# It won't replace the original market role and is only being used for informational purposes.
# It is a historically significant photo of a famous event (the Olympics) and individual (see draft for Diane Ellingson Smith article for more details) where both are discussed in the article.
# Its quality is not conducive to re-use elsewhere.
# It has been previously published elsewhere <ref></ref>
# It will be in at least one article—the [[Diane Ellingson Smith]] article.

Michemily (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Michemily. Wikipedia does generally allow non-free images of deceased person to be used for primary identification in a stand-alone article about the person in question (as explained in item 10 of WP:NFCI), but only when there's no reasonable expectation of a freely licensed equivalent image being created or found which can serve the same basic encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one per WP:FREER. A free equivalent doesn't have to be a freely licensed version of non-free image; it can be a different image altogether but one which is sufficient enough to serve purpose of primary identification. Since Draft:Diane Ellingson Smith seem to have just died with in the past few days and since she was a Para-Olympic athlete, there might actually be a freely licensed image out there somewhere which can be found and uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or someone might be willing to release a copyright image under a free image that Wikipedia accepts per WP:COPYREQ. Although there's no set period of time that needs to pass before a person has died and when a non-free image is considered OK to use, it's generally going to be expected that the person wanting to upload and use a non-free image has made a reasonable effort to find a free equivalent first. In order words, the default is not necessarily assume that a non-free image is automatically OK to use as soon as person has died. The meaning of "reasonable effort" is a bit subjective, but I think it would likely be considered to doing something a little more that simply Googling "free images of Diane Ellingson Smith" and deciding to use a non-free one if your search comes up empty. At the same time, it also doesn't mean badgering the family and friends of persons who just died to try and get them to release an under a free license. So, perhaps you can clarify some of the ways you've tried to find a free equivalent.
As for a non-free image, the first things is that non-free files need to be used in at least one article (WP:NFCC#7) and can only be used in article's (WP:NFCC#9); so, you cannot use the file in the draft you're working on and should wait until the draft has been approved (see WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts) before uploading the file. If you upload the file and there's no policy-compliant way to use it, it will only be deleted per WP:F5. For the file copyright license, I would suggest Template:Non-free biog pic and for the non-free use rationale I would suggest Template:Non-free use rationale biog. Make sure you provide as much about the file's source and copyright ownership as possible per WP:NFCC#10a and also make sure that you steer clear of anything from a photo agency like Getty Images per item 7 of WP:NFC#UUI since such images are almost never accepted and usually end up deleted per WP:F7. If you want to use the photo found here and there are no WP:FREER issues, then it would probably be better to find the original article where the photo first appeared and use that as the source instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Edit in response to User:Marchjuly: I have sent requests to four sources for permission to use an image and have not heard back from any of them despite follow-up. I still don't have the answer to how to fill in the missing categories and how to format them. Would very much appreciate any guidance there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michemily (talkcontribs) 15:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Michemily: First, please try to WP:SIGN your talk page posts. The easiest way to do this is explained in WP:TILDE.
Elligson-Smith died on Friday, July 12; so, if you sent out requests to use some photos shorty after she died, then only a few days have passed and two of those days were on the weekend which might mean that your emails haven’t been read yet. Even if you do eventually receive replies and these replies are “no”, non-free files cannot be used in drafts and your draft is currently awaiting WP:AFC review. It could take quite some time before your draft is reviewed, and then more time before it’s approved; so, you should wait until the draft has been approved before you upload a non-free file for use in the draft. If you do so before that time, the file will only likely end up deleted.
About the licensing and non-free use rationale for the file, you don't really need to do things the way you’ve done them above in your original post. Instead of using Template:Non-free use rationale 2, it would be easier to use Template:Non-free use rationale biog. If you use the latter template (specifically “the minimum required for a deceased person” given as one of the examples in the template’s documentation) and fill in the required primary parameters, the missing categories should be completed automatically. You also will not need to use Template:Information if you do this because the non-free use rationale can provide the same information as that template. For the copyright licenses, it can make things easier to add the to a separate section of the file’s page (many editors call this section “Licensing”) instead of adding them to the |permission= parameter of the non-free use rationale template.
You can practice how to format the non-free use rationale I’m suggesting in your user sandbox (User:Michemily/sandbox). Then, when the draft you’re working on has been approved and you’re ready to upload and the image to the article, you can post a request again here with a link to your sandbox and ask someone to check things once again. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

photo tags[edit]

Adding a photograph taken specifically for use on Wikipedia (with permission for use, obviously), what is the correct tag or coding to be used so the threats of deletion will cease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpack (talkcontribs) 17:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

We need permission from the person who took the photo, who would be the copyright holder, not from anybody else. He or she needs to explicitly license the photo for use here and elsewhere--Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC) under one of the Creative Commons licenses we accept. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Wimbledon single-elimination bracket photo[edit]

I attended last week's Wimbledon tennis tournament and took photos of the large physical single-elimination brackets they had onsite. They are the nicest physical tournament bracket displays I have ever seen and I wanted to use a photo to illustrate, at least, the single-elimination tournament article.

Argument it's copyrighted by the Wimbledon tennis club: The choices of color and font, and the arrangement of some of the data presented, are creative choices that (the argument goes) meet the minimum threshold for copyrightability. Some photos include about half of the Wimbledon logo within the photo.

Argument against: Those creative choices are minimal; the board is primarily functional, presenting the tournament bracket information in a straightforward way.

I'm happy to upload the photo or a part of it if someone can tell me where to upload a potentially infringing image. Thanks - I went to Wimbledon (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey User:I went to Wimbledon. Unfortunately, the threshold for originality in the UK is very low compared to other places such as the US. I don't personally recommend uploading any UK pictures on the basis of TOO. GMGtalk 15:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree here with GMG. There might be a call for the board not to pass the TOO in the US or the like, but in the UK, it's "sweat of the brow" and decisions likes color and font can enter into copyright there. --Masem (t) 15:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
From what I understand, images (such as logos) of foreign origin that are above the TOO in their source country but which are below the US TOO can be accepted on the English Wikipedia under {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}. There is the question as to whether freely-licensed photos of non-US works could be treated in the same way. --Elegie (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, GreenMeansGo and Masem. Last ditch try: What if the photo were taken by an American on a visit, who then uploaded the photo from home in America? I went to Wimbledon (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately no. I know there's some issued on freedom of panorama related to building arch that makes that an interesting case, but I would say the board should be treated as fixed art, which makes it a bit different. The only way I could see it getting as free is if the board were way small and to the side in a more wide-view of Wimbledon, as to meet the de minimus concept.   Or yet another alternative but will take more work is to find sourced discussed about the quality of these bracket boards, as then there's a logical reason to use a photo under NFCC. --Masem (t) 16:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the law goes by location of creation rather than citizenship of creator? GMGtalk 16:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Citizenship doesn't matter, surely, but I was hoping the country of publication would. I went to Wimbledon (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Not in the instance of freedom of panorama. Your photo would be a derivative work of the bracket, and the bracket was published in the UK. GMGtalk 19:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The FOP in the UK is different from the the one in the US in that the former does allow publicly displayed 3D artwork to be photographed without worrying about infringing on the copyright of the artist who created the work. I’m not sure whether that makes a difference here. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Admittedly, I presume that this would be a two dimensional work. But I also don't sport. GMGtalk 20:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I meant to go back and tweak my post. Upon further reading on the Commons section about the UK’s FOP, it appears to even some publicly displayed 2D artwork is even OK to photograph. There does seem to be a different application towards 2D graphic art, but again on not sure if any of this matters here. What’s interesting (at least to me) is that even though the UK’s TOO is more restrictive than the US’s, it’s FOP is more liberal. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@I went to Wimbledon: You are correct that the law that applies is the law of the country of publication, the country where the image is used. However, in addition to the applicable law, Wikimedia Commons has a self-imposed internal policy. And according to one restrictive interpretation of that self-imposed policy, to be hosted on Commons, an image should be freely usable also under the laws of each country from which originates an object visible on the image. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

commissioned photos uploaded by company representative[edit]

Are product photos uploaded by a representative of the company that commissioned the photos considered to have been uploaded by the copyright holder? --valereee (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

So long as that individual is empowered to make legal decisions on behalf of the company, and so long as there is a contract in place transferring copyright to the company from the photographer. Whether they understand what that means or not is a different question all together. GMGtalk 15:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
If the company has already lawfully licensed the photo suitably then all the uploader has to do is assert this truthfully. Discussions tend to be about whether we have good reason to believe the licence claim. We often say the uploader needs to be granting the licence but this does not necessarily need to be the case. Thincat (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, both! --valereee (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure of the status of historic railway timetables[edit]

Specifically this one published by the Montreux Oberland Bernois Railway for the Clarens–Chailly–Blonay Railway in 1911. Would you have to identify the author and see when they died? Talltim (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Frederica von Stade Sings Brubeck Across Your Dreams[edit]

If I've understood Wikipedia's protocols correctly, it's orthodox for the official cover of an album to be allowed on the album's wikipage, and yet the cover that I added to this article has been deleted twice. I must confess to being bewildered.Niggle1892 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The user who removed the image from the article explained it in their edit comments: the file description page does not include a NFU rationale for the article "Frederica von Stade Sings Brubeck: Across Your Dreams", where you were trying to include the image. You included a (disputable) NFU rationale for the article "Frederica von Stade", where the file is not used. -- Asclepias (talk)

Can I upload a photo I took of a statue of a dead person?[edit]

The individual who is the subject of the statue died about 15 years ago, so it would be difficult to obtain a free image. There is already a wiki page on the individual, but it does not have any pictures. I was wondering if I could upload the photo of the statue for the limited purpose of the individual's bio-page. I assume the sculptor holds copyright / moral rights to the statue itself, so the image would be non-free. Is this doable?Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally yes, this would be allowed as non-free. Do check Commons:Freedom of panorama for the country you are in, sometimes this type of photograph could be free. --Masem (t) 21:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Please do not be so secretive about the statue, its location and its sculptor. That might make a difference to evaluate if Commons or Wikipedia would allow you to upload the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. Just going to add that it makes no difference whether the subject of the statue is living or dead to upload a photograph of the statue. Moreover, regardless of the copyright license you upload such a photo under, I don't think that it would really encyclopedially helpful to upload a photo of a statue of the person so as to use it for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of the article about the person because a statue is going to represent how the scultpure "sees" the individual, not necessarily how the individual actually appeared. If individual in question is deceased, then it may be preferable to upload a non-free photograph (per item 10 of WP:NFCI) of the person (assuming the WP:FREER is not an issue) using the non-free copyright license {{Non-free biog pic}} and the non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale biog}} instead.
As for the photo of the statue, it might be possible to upload it under a non-free copyright license like {{Non-free 3D art}} using the non-free use rationale {{Non-free use rationale}} for use in the body of the article if there is some sourced commentary about the statue itself somewhere in the article. Whether the photo can be uploaded under a free license will largely depend on the degree of freedom of panorama allowed under the copyright law of where the statue is installed as Masem advised above. Different countries have different practices when it comes to the copyright status of pubically displayed 3D works of art, so it would be easier to help you if you can provide more information per Asclepias. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:USPS Pluto Stamp - October 1991.jpg in the New Horizons article[edit]

The non-free image of a 1991 US postage stamp is accompanied by a statement claiming that the stamp provided a reason for carrying out the New Horizons mission. This statement does not appear to have any references. In the "Mission profile" section of the article, there is a statement about an instance of the stamp being included among some other items onboard the spacecraft, and that statement does have two references.

If the postage stamp was a significant factor in the decision to carry out the New Horizons mission, then it might be more likely that an image of the stamp would be justifiable in the article as non-free content. In such a case, it could be useful to for the article text about the stamp's role to have proper references. (Though I am not sure, if an article makes a point such as "This postage stamp was a significant reason for carrying out this space mission" and a non-free image is used to help article readers understand that point, then references for the point that the article text is making may be important for justifying the inclusion of the non-free image.) To be sure, there is the question as to whether the image of the stamp could be replaced by a textual description of the stamp (particularly its reference to Pluto and the "Not Yet Explored" message.)

Assuming that the inclusion of the stamp image in the article is justified, there is the question of the image's non-free use rationale. In particular, the "Respect for commercial opportunities" section seems to state that the stamp's commercial market will not be affected by the inclusion of the image in the article because the image itself is not usable as a postage stamp. It might be better to say (or to say in addition) that the article mentions how the stamp was a significant factor in the decision to carry out the New Horizons mission and that the stamp image is included in the article to help readers understand that statement. In addition, it would be useful to state that the usage of the stamp image in that context is different from its original market roles such as decoration, marketing the actual stamp, or illustrating the stamp's subject. --Elegie (talk) 08:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been dealing with stamp copyright here and on the commons, for years. This clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no commentary about the stamp itself justifying reason for including the image and the reader's understanding of the topic is not detrimental to their understanding that could be made in prose but is not even mentioned. There are no sources for the justification within the rationale and I personally doubt there are any such sources. However, if the image is a NASA image in the public domain, then maybe the stamp could be considered too simple to be copyrighted. Where did the Pluto image come from? None of the freely licensed commons images look even close to the one on the stamp. ww2censor (talk) 10:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
If it is not free, the inclusion of this image is not really justified in the article New Horizons. There is no significant commentary about this artwork or about its author. Addition of such commentary in this article would likely be off topic. The inclusion of this image would be more justified in the article Ron Miller (artist and author), as an example of his works as a designer of stamps. As a bonus, three references are already there about a connection with the New Horizons mission. Where the connection is mentioned in the New Horizons article, you can place a link to the article about Ron Miller. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Asclepias, of the 3 sources in the Ron Miller (artist and author) article, one is dead and neither of the other two mention the stamp being the inspiration for the mission, so they are of no use for this use. This stamp is hardly representative of his work, being a planet image with some very simple text. I'm sure there must be better examples of the work he has done as mentioned in the article. The stamp does not even appear in an image search for "Ron Miller space art" in pages of examples. But, I'm sorry, I digress from the main point of this posting. ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the stamp image is appropriate for New Horizons until and unless there is some sourced discussion in the article about stamp provided a reason for carrying out the New Horizons mission. So, yank. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

─────── @Asclepias, Elegie, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Ww2censor: Hey guys. I'm the person that originally uploaded and introduced the stamp into the New Horizons article years ago. It was originally used to illustrate an expanded "Background" section I had written back in July 2015, a sub-section of which discusses how the stamp inspired the Pluto Fast Flyby concept, the first form of what would eventually become the New Horizons mission. The vast majority of this section now forms part of the Exploration of Pluto article at the will of BatteryIncluded, following a move they made a few months afterward. The stamp was later reintroduced as part of an attempt by Tdadamemd sioz in June 2016 to bring back some of the pre-New Frontiers background of the mission – an attempt questionably denied by Jim.henderson the day after, however Jim had left the stamp in. This is as far as I know the complete relevant story of how the stamp got into the article you see today. Because the content I had written about the stamp itself and the inspiration of Pluto Fast Flyby now exists in Exploration of Pluto, that is where the stamp should be in order to illustrate to the reader the catalyst for what would eventually become New Horizons. I've gone ahead and done this, and updated {{Non-free use rationale 2}} on the file page. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

PhilipTerryGraham/Articles it's unacceptable of you to remove the template from the image without following the instructions in that template which specifically say NOT to remove it. I've reinstated it because the reasoning for this image failing WP:NFCC remain the same even though you have refactored the information. ww2censor (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: I apologise for that. I will note that the issue addressed in this nomination was resolved and the image no longer fails the non-free content criteria. I’m not sure how one closes this discussion though, which was what I attempted to do when I removed the template. I wouldn’t mind some instructions on that! Haha! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 13:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Labeled as reuse, but may be copyrighted?[edit]

Hello, I'm a semi-experienced editor here on Wikipedia, but I am a complete beginner when it pertains to managing files. I was attempting to upload an image to accompany an article; I wanted to make sure that all of the copyright rules were obeyed, so I only searched through the images labeled for reuse on Google. Once I found an appropriate image, I downloaded, but I became aware of something. Just below the image was the line "Images may be subject to copyright". This copyright notice is located beneath every image on Google; however, is it fine if the image is labeled for reuse? Thanks for getting back to this, Utopes (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Find the original source of the image and see what information is there about the copyright. We can't help you more if you keep secret what image it is. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
(Hey, I wasn't trying to keep it a secret, the question just never came up if it mattered).Utopes (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey Utopes. As indicated above, we can probably be more helpful if you link us to the specific image. Copyright and licensing can be extremely complicated, and small details can often make a large difference. But in general, as far as I am aware, Google adds this disclaimer to everything regardless of the license, probably to protect themselves from litigation if someone takes a copyrighted image off of and then gets sued over it. GMGtalk 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks GMG, it is right here:
I was trying to save the Yoli article from AfD, and was hoping that an accompanying image would help it stay in line with the other articles about soft drinks. I did find reliable sources, but wanted to polish it off with this and an infobox. Utopes (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey Utopes. Well, the image on Flickr may be freely licensed, but you still might run into problem with the design of the packing being covered under copyright. But I really don't now very much about the threshold for originality in Mexico, and c:COM:TOO isn't very helpful on the matter. GMGtalk 18:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I see... how are packaging/logo images usually covered? What should be my next course of action? Utopes (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes in cases like this two file copyright licenses are needed: one for the photo and one for the packaging. If you took the photo yourself, you can (and most likely should) release the file under one of the free licenses found at WP:ICT/FL; you should then add a Template:Information for the photo. If you didn't take the photo yourself, then you're going to need to show WP:CONSENT from the copyright holder to upload the file under a free license. So, if you use the Flickr photo referenced above, you should probably use Template:Cc-by-2.0 for the photo's licensing. It's highly unlikely that a non-free licensed photo taken by a third-party is going to be allowed per WP:FREER, unless it's something from one of the product's official websites.
The product labeling (if subject to copyright protection) can be licensed using a non-free license like one of those listed in Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates (perhaps Template:Non-free product cover would work; you then will need to add a non-free use rationale for the labeling (perhaps Template:Cover rationale). Since part of the file is considered to be non-free, the whole files is going to be treated as such for use on Wikipedia; this means that each use of the file is going to need to meet WP:NFCC. So, if you upload the file and it cannot be used in a policy compliant way in any articles, it will likely be deleted; if some uses are OK but others aren't, it will likely be removed from wherever it's not OK to use. If you want to use the file multiple times, you will need to satisfy WP:NFCCP for each use.
There's one more possibility but it's a bit tricky. Sometimes the license Template:PD-ineligible-USonly is used when something is considered to be too simple for copyright eligibility per U.S. copyright law, but perhaps too complex to be public domain in the country of origin. This is sort of a local English Wikipedia version of Template:PD-logo and enables the file to be treated by English Wikipedia the same way as a public domain file. These files cannot be moved to Commons, but they are typically easier to use than a non-free file since they are not subject to WP:NFCC. You still would need a separate copyright license for the photo.
Just for reference, articles are not really deleted because how many images are being used in them; so, adding an infobox image is unlikely going to have any effect on AfD about the article. You'd be much better of trying to show how WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG are met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Utopes: There's no perfect solution, but if you have access to bottles of the product, one possible solution is that you can yourself take a photo of a whole bottle. Like examples in Commons:Category:Soft drink bottles. Make sure it'a a photo of a whole bottle. Commons usually keeps them by analogy with a case about which a short summary is in this recent discussion. Photos of cans are subject to stricter scrutiny and may require that the packaging works be below the threshold. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


I have been busy lately, working on articles such as Hill Climb Racing, and while I can do major cleanups for those articles while doing investigative research, there is one situation that has me stumped.

On that Hill Climb Racing article, I am considering replacing the icon in the infobox with the logo of the game for three reasons: 1. A trademarked logo is generally more identifiable than an application icon containing copyrighted material from the application. 2. There is a chance that the logo is free (the reason I am here). 3. If so, it could be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and thus be used across other Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. For your reference, here is the logo in question, on the left side at the top of the page. Since the application and its logo were designed in Finland, I checked this Commons guideline to be on the safe side, but ultimately I cannot decide whether the logo is below the country's threshold of originality. I know that a simple solid-colored checkered flag is considered common property in the US, and so is impact text, but I am not sure whether a checkered flag in this context is considered free in Finland. My best guess is that it is, because a simple checkered flag alone is not particularly artistic, let alone the ubiquity of the pattern.

I am vectorizing the logo for the sake of accessibility, and it would be embarrassing to upload it to Commons only to see it taken down on the grounds of infringing copyrights (and this would not be the first time something like that has happened to me). I do think that the logo is better than an app icon for the purpose of identification, but it would be great if I could get an answer on whether it is in the public domain in Finland in order to be uploaded to Commons. Gamingforfun365 03:50, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You could upload the logo as non-free without any concerns about the TOO in either the US or Finland, but in that case you probably should only use an official svg released by the copyright holder for the reasons explained in WP:FREER. Another possibility might be to upload the file as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} for local use only on English Wikipedia; this is sometimes done when a logo is likely too simple to be copyrightable in the US, but perhaps is eligible for copyright protection in its country or origin. If, however, you really want to upload the file to Commons, then you can ask for opinions at c:COM:VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)