Editing Eurovision Wiki:Media copyright questions

{{Short description|Centralized discussion place in English Wikipedia}}
{{/Header}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(14d)
| archive = Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
| minthreadsleft = 0
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
}}<!--PLEASE ADD QUESTIONS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, NOT HERE. THANKS!-->

== [[:File:UK Defence Journal website logo.png]] ==

Would this fall under pd-text? —[[User:Opecuted|Opecuted]] ([[User talk:Opecuted|talk]]) 13:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{tl|PD-ineligible-USonly}} I suspect - that setup might be copyrightable from an UK perspective, but definitively not the US one. [[User:Jo-Jo Eumerus|Jo-Jo Eumerus]] ([[User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus|talk]]) 14:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
::I would second that, and have applied the PD-ineligible-USonly licence tag. (Declaring it uncopyrightable in the UK, by contrast, would seem to be a fact-based inquiry into whether the arrangement and choice of colour and font were artistically original...which is a fairly subjective standard. My inclination is that it was probably not intended to convey a figurative meaning, but rather to look nice on a website, but I don't feel like it's especially important to be sure.) [[User:TheFeds|<span style="font-family:Constantia; color=#0077bb; font-size:medium; line-height:0.0;">'''''TheFeds'''''</span>]] 03:21, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

== File:Wdae957logo.webp ==

The only copyright-eligible element in [[:File:Wdae957logo.webp]] seems to be the [[:Starburst (symbol)|starburst]] like bit in the light blue bar at the bottom of the logo. Any opinions are whether that alone is enough to push the logo above [[:c:COM:TOO US]]? If it's not, then the file can be relicensed as {{tlx|PD-logo}} and tagged with {{tlx|Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 01:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

:It seems conceptually similar to the PD [[:File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg]] (subject of copyright ruling cited at [[Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Threshold_of_originality|Commons]]). The star or flash is probably not anything more than a generic representation without a specific creative expression. It is interesting to note that [[:File:WDAE 95.3-620 logo.png]] also exists, as does [[:commons:Category:Radio station logos of Florida]]. [[User:TheFeds|<span style="font-family:Constantia; color=#0077bb; font-size:medium; line-height:0.0;">'''''TheFeds'''''</span>]] 03:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

== ZX81_Sinclair_Research_advert fair use image size ==

Could we [[WP:IMAGERES|enlarge]] [[:File:ZX81_Sinclair_Research_advert.jpg]] by restoring the previous revision? It has a fair use rationale "To accompany critical commentary on Sinclair Research's marketing campaign for the ZX81, with reference to the layout, design, typography, language and purpose of this display advertisement." The article comments on benefits and value for money, using this image as an example, but that information cannot be read at this size. The article also devotes a large paragraph (and then some) to describing the advertising style exemplified here, so I think we're on firm footing in terms of critical commentary and use of the relevant portion. [[User:TheFeds|<span style="font-family:Constantia; color=#0077bb; font-size:medium; line-height:0.0;">'''''TheFeds'''''</span>]] 02:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

== File:St Mary'sChurchHorhsamSussexEnglandcirca1910.jpg ==

[[:File:St Mary'sChurchHorhsamSussexEnglandcirca1910.jpg]] was uploaded as non-free content back in 2009, but that seems mainly just as a precaution. If this was published in 1912 as it's description claims, it should be {{tlx|PD-US}} at this point, shouldn't it? -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 23:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

:Well into public domain.  I've relicensed it, restored the larger redacted version and moved it to Commons. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 00:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
:: Thank you {{u|Whpq}}. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 01:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

== [[:File:Anastasia Mishina, Aleksandr Galliamov - 2023 Russian GP Stage 4 - 03.jpg]] ==

A question arose at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Figure skating at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Team event/archive1|FAC]] regarding the license of this image and others that have this explanation: This file comes from the [https://tatarstan.ru/ official website] of of the '''[[Tatarstan]]''' and is licensed under the [[Creative Commons]] [[ccorg:licenses/by/4.0/deed.en|Attribution 4.0 International]] license. Can someone please verify that this license is valid? [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 05:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
: {{ping|Bgsu98}} Since that file was uploaded to Commons, the best place to ask about is probably going to be at [[:c:COM:VPC]]. FWIW, I clicked on the source link for the file and used Google Translate to translate the page into English, but I didn't find any specific licensing for this or any of the other photos on the page that indicate its content being released as CC-by-4.0. It also looks like someone just created [[:c:Template:Tatarstan.ru/en]] without any real discussion (things like that sometimes happen at Commons). So, there's no way to tell whether the license is even valid to begin with, and there also doesn't appear to be any information about the copyright laws of Tatarstan on Commons per [[:c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory]] which might aid in assessing that. That license is being used by lots of files; so, it probably should be discussed in general terms and not just as it relates to this particular file. It also might need to be a discussion involving someone who understands enough Tartar or Russian to sort out the country's copyright laws. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 07:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
::[[User:Marchjuly]]: Thank you for your response! It looks like the uploader probably just snagged the photos and slapped on the license, my guess is assuming that photos on government website are free game. Since my concern with this is in regards to this specific FAC, I have simply swapped out the photos for ones with unimpeachable licensing. [[User:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">'''Bgsu98'''</span>]] [[User talk:Bgsu98|<span style="color:darkorange;">(Talk)</span>]] 10:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Bgsu98}} I took another look at the [https://tatarstan.ru/ url] provided for the licensing template used for this file. If you scroll down to the very bottom of the page, you'll find that all of the content on the site has been released under a "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" license; so, all content sourced to that website should be OK. The source website isn't in English but you can use Google Translate or some other online translator to check for yourself if you want. What might be a problem is that this particular image is sourced to the Ministry of Sports of the Republic of Tatarstan's official website, which doesn't use the same url address. There's is also no similar mention of copyright licensing that I can find on the ministry's website.  So, it's not clear whether that particular license applies to all Republic of Tatarstan official websites, some official websites, or just the main website. I've asked about this at [[:c:COM:VPC#File:Anastasia Mishina, Aleksandr Galliamov - 2023 Russian GP Stage 4 - 03.jpg]] and perhaps someone there can help sort it out. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 02:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:{{ping|Bgsu98}} No doubt. Both ''tatarstan.ru'' and ''minsport.tatarstan.ru'' clearly carry this free license in their footers. [[User:Komarof|Komarof]] ([[User talk:Komarof|talk]]) 05:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::Yes {{u|Bgsu98}}. This file is OK as licensed. There's licensing information at the bottom of the site that clearly states the content is OK for Commons, but it's hidden behind a cookie pop window. Thanks to {{u|Komarof}} for finding it. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 06:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

==Royal Thai Navy photos==
Does anyone know the copyright status of photographs taken by the Royal Thai Navy please? I'd like to use the photo of the burning ship in [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5l988qr47o this BBC report], which originates from the Royal Thai Navy. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 14:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
:{{ping|Mjroots}}. There doesn't seem to be anything in [[:c:COM:Thailand]] that indicates photos taken by members of Thailand's military are considered to be within the public domain; so, I think you assume that the photo is under copyright protection and work from there. You could try asking about it at [[:c:COM:VPC]], but my guess is that this photo would probably need to be treated as [[:WP:NFC|non-free content]] for use on English Wikipedia, i.e., its use would need to satisfy [[:WP:NFCC]]. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 02:19, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{re|Marchjuly}} - I did look at the Thai Navy website, but I don't speak Thai and it is not a language supported by Firefox for translation. I think NFCC won't be met, mainly because a compatible photo ''could'' be obtained. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 03:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::If {{url|https://www.navy.mi.th/}} is the website you checked, then there's a "Language" tab at the top that you can use to switch to English. It says at the very bottom of the site "© 2022 Royal Thai Navy. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.", but that could just be a type of generic license found on most websites. You could try asking at [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Thailand]] to see whether any of its members understand enough Thai to find something online about official Thai military photos and their copyright status. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 07:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

== File:Valley_View_Center_logo.png ==

Would this image fall under Public Domain due it just being simple text and geometry? [[User:Crafts97|Crafts97]] ([[User talk:Crafts97|talk]]) 15:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

:@[[User:Crafts97|Crafts97]] I would say yes since the tilde over the V isn't particularly original, so it would fall under [[c:COM:TOO US]]. [[User:HurricaneZeta|<span style="background-color:#ffd98c; color:black">'''Hurricane'''</span>]][[User talk:HurricaneZeta|<span style="background-color:#ffd98c; color:black">'''Zeta'''</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/HurricaneZeta|C]]</sup> 16:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:I'd say yeah too. [[User:JustARandomSquid|JustARandomSquid]] ([[User talk:JustARandomSquid|talk]]) 20:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

== File: Becoming Led Zeppelin poster.jpg ==

This file of a 2025 film poster was uploaded as Fair Use and used on the page [[Becoming Led Zeppelin]].  I included it on the page [[List of highest-grossing documentary films]], and it was immediately removed by JJMC89 bot. The reason given was: "Removed [[WP:NFCC]] violation(s). No valid [[Wikipedia:NFUR|non-free use rationale]] for this page. See [[WP:NFC#Implementation]]." It is unclear to me if the issue relates to the original licence designation, the rationale provided, or a broader copyright issue.  Would the use of [[Template:Non-free poster]] resolve it?  Could anyone advise on how to resolve this issue to reuse this image?  Many thanks! [[User:Limelightangel|Limelightangel]] ([[User talk:Limelightangel|talk]])  09:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:{{ping|Limelightangel}} Non-free files are required to have two things: a [[:WP:ICT/FU|non-free copyright license]] and a separate, specific [[:WP:FUR|non-free content use rationale]] for each use. Pretty much in all cases, one copyright license is sufficient regardless of how many times a file is being used; however, since non-free use isn't automatic and each use is required to meet all [[:WP:NFCCP|ten non-free content use criteria]], a rationale needs to be provided for each use of the file (regardless if the uses are in the same article or in different articles). The bot that removed the file has been tasked with finding non-free files lacking rationales for each of their uses, and it removes the file from those articles lacking corresponding rationales per [[:WP:NFCCE]] and [[:WP:NFCC#10c]]. This is why the bot inlcuded a link to [[:WP:NFC#Implementation]] in the edit summary it left when it removed the file.{{pb}}When it comes to non-free movie posters like [[:File:Becoming Led Zeppelin poster.jpg]], it's generally OK for the file to be used for primary identificatio purposes at the top or in the main infobox of the stand-laone article about the movie the poster identifies; so, the use in ''[[:Becoming Led Zeppelin]]'' seems fine. It's much harder, though, to use the same poster in other articles because those types or non-free use are typically not considered policy compliant. Non-free use in list articles, in particular, is pretty much never allowed to illustrate an individual entry per [[:WP:NFLISTS]] because such use is almost always considered [[:WP:DECORATIVE]]. So, while adding a missing rationale for [[:List of highest-grossing documentary films]] should stop the bot from removing the file from the article again, the use still wouldn't be allowed by relevant Wikipedia policy; so, the file will most likely just end up being removed again by someone else. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 13:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

== Removal of portrait of William Chappell dancer ==

I obtained permission to use a portrait if William Chappell (on page [[William Chappell (dancer)]] but it has since been deleted. It fits the criteria for non-free content - this I added under the caption. Where did I go wrong? and how do I correct this ?  Thanks and regards [[User:Coejonathan|Coejonathan]] ([[User talk:Coejonathan|talk]]) 14:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Later -  reposted with complete rationale -- deleted again -- but why -- I need some help here to understand what has gone wrong -- given I have been supplied the picture by its owner for use on this wikipedia page.. thanks  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Coejonathan|Coejonathan]] ([[User talk:Coejonathan#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Coejonathan|contribs]]) 17:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:@[[User:Coejonathan|Coejonathan]] I converted the non-free rationale into a template, {{t|Non-free use rationale}}, which the bot checks for. It shouldn't be removed now. [[User:HurricaneZeta|<span style="background-color:#ffd98c; color:black">'''Hurricane'''</span>]][[User talk:HurricaneZeta|<span style="background-color:#ffd98c; color:black">'''Zeta'''</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/HurricaneZeta|C]]</sup> 18:09, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
::Hi -- very many thanks for speedy reply -- I'm not sure I undertsand the use of templates -- I find it confusing to find the right one -- but excellent help -- I am learning -- my regards [[User:Coejonathan|Coejonathan]] ([[User talk:Coejonathan|talk]]) 18:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Coejonathan}} You aren't required to use templates for a [[:WP:FUR|non-free rationale]], but doing so can make things a bit easier. The main problem with the rationale you intially provided was that it didn't contain a link to specific article where the file was intended to be used: you just wrote "Use is limited to this page". The bot had no way of figuring out what "this page" meant; so, it treated the use in [[:William Chappell (dancer)]] as a violation of [[:WP:NFCC#10|non-free content use criterion #10c]]. Technically speaking, that bot isn't checking to see whether a non-free use rationale template is being used, but rather whether there's a specific link to the article where the file is being used in the non-free use rationale that has been provided. Non-template rationales are perfectly OK per [[:WP:FUR#Non-template]]. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 02:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

== File:ChromeOS screenshot.png ==

I had to revert JJMC89 bot as it deleted the image (at the page [[ChromeOS]]) I believe it should be fine to put it on there as the bot said "No valid non-free use rationale for this page." Is the image good to stay up, or does the rational need to change? From my knowledge, the bot has never removed it before this time. It has, from what I see, been on the page for a whole year now. <span style="font-weight:750; font-family:Verdana"> [[User:SuperJames888|<span style="color:#ff7f2a">SuperJames888</span>]]</span> ([[User talk:SuperJames888|Talk to me]]) 15:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

:@[[User:SuperJames888|SuperJames888]] I think it was because the article parameter on the file said [[Chrome OS]] instead of [[ChromeOS]], I fixed that. [[User:HurricaneZeta|<span style="background-color:#ffd98c; color:black">'''Hurricane'''</span>]][[User talk:HurricaneZeta|<span style="background-color:#ffd98c; color:black">'''Zeta'''</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/HurricaneZeta|C]]</sup> 15:33, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
::Ah yeah that probably was the issue, since they did move the article to ChromeOS last month. Thanks! <span style="font-weight:750; font-family:Verdana"> [[User:SuperJames888|<span style="color:#ff7f2a">SuperJames888</span>]]</span> ([[User talk:SuperJames888|Talk to me]]) 20:13, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{ping|SuperJames888}} The reason why the bot removed the file had nothing to do with the change in the name of the article (the bot is capable of figuring things out like that) and everything to do with some random unregistered account blanking the file's page with [[:Special:diff/~2026-16168-46/1343554452|this edit]] made yesterday morning. The bot just picked up on that before someone was came along and reverted that vandalism about 12 hours later. Most likely you only saw the reverted version of the file's page when you re-added the file early this morning. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 02:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Ah that actually makes sense why that would happen. I actually never knew the bot could pick up on article blanking. <span style="font-weight:750; font-family:Verdana"> [[User:SuperJames888|<span style="color:#ff7f2a">SuperJames888</span>]]</span> ([[User talk:SuperJames888|Talk to me]]) 14:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::You can ask {{u|JJMC89}} for more details since they operate that bot, but my understanding is that the bot is looking for non-free rationales (links to articles to be more precise) corresponding to each use of a non-free file. When the bot comes across a file that is lacking a rationale (i.e. link) for a particular use, it removes the file from the corresponding article. In this case, the bot had no idea why there was no rationale for the use of the file in the "ChromeOS" or even whether there had ever been one; all it caught was that there was no link to the article where the file was being used at that particular time. If perhaps someone had caught the vandalism earlier and reverted it, the bot probably wouldn't have even noticed the file. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 05:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

== File:Intro_Bonito.jpeg ==

The image only has Japanese text, and a simple speech bubble. Is this eligible for copyright? [[User:Crafts97|Crafts97]] ([[User talk:Crafts97|talk]]) 18:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

== [[:File:Family of Saltimbanques.JPG|File:Family of Saltimbanques.JPG]] ==

I hate to open up what could be a large can of worms, but I'm wondering if we need evidence of pre-1931 publication outside the US for this painting by Picasso, owned by the National Gallery in Washington. It reminds me somewhat of the [[File talk:Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.jpg|very old discussions]] surrounding the publication status of Picasso's ''[[Les Demoiselles d'Avignon]]''.

''Family of Saltimbanques'' was first sold directly from the artist to a private collection in Paris in 1908, before trading hands and appearing in several galleries in Europe - I really have no clue how we'd know if those galleries allowed the public to copy the works they were displaying, thus constituting publication of the painting. This info comes from the provenance listed under "artwork history" on the National Gallery's [https://www.nga.gov/artworks/46665-family-saltimbanques collection page] for this work. The bibliography also lists a 1932 publication as the first recorded reproduction of the work in print. Artists Rights Society claims the work is copyrighted (with a copyright date of 2012 for some reason), which is why this caught my eye, but obviously they are not the most reliable narrators in situations like this.

Courtesy tagging @[[User:APK|APK]] as the uploader (apologies if you already did the digging on publication status here). [[User:19h00s|19h00s]] ([[User talk:19h00s|talk]]) 21:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

== US-produced radar maps ==

[https://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/misc/990602.html]

In general, who produces US weather radar maps?  Are they generally from NOAA, or from media outlets, or does it vary?  Wondering about uploading this 1999 map of Arkansas, which has no information about the source; it obviously didn't come from the website, which is from the University of Wisconsin.  I'm guessing that we can't prove PD-USGov, but figured I'd ask just in case.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 07:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)