Whpq

Books & Bytes – Issue 43

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 43, March – April 2021

• New Library Card designs
• 1Lib1Ref May

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Al Ain FC logo 1968-1977.png

Hey, can you please tell what difference between this image File:Tottenham Hotspur old logo.png and mine why there is no issue with there upload!! Sm3a (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sm3a: Use of non-free content must meet all the non-free content criteria.In this particular case, WP:NFCC#8 is the issue. Compare the stated purpose of the Hotspurs crest usage with the stated purpose of the old logos in the Al Ain FC logos. You've just copied some text from somewhere statins that these logos are used for primary identification. They are not. See also WP:NFG. These logos are just dumped in an image gallery with a single unsourced sentence making a general statement about the logos. Compare that to the Hotspurs article. Do you see a difference?

Okay can you help me make these logos legal for usage ? Sm3a (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sm3a: You need to find reliable sources writing about the logos. I suggest you ask at WikiProject Football for assistance. -- Whpq (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I will not find a reliable sources because these logos came from the club fans archive, but i will try. can i redesign these logos and upload it ? Sm3a (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Sm3a: It's not clear what you mean by "redesign". I f you mean you intend to copy the logos by somehow recreating them using some drawing software, then no, that doesn't change the fact the the images are copyrighted. If you mean to alter the logos in some way so they are different from the original logos, then, it is also no as it is a derivative work which still has the issue of the original copyright, and it would also means these are not proper representations of the logo and so their use as true logos would be misleading. -- Whpq (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Harem Scarem

Hello and thank you for a clear explanation of the rules regarding that Harem Scarem image. Hopefully it's ok to reply here? And yes, you're right it is confusing... I accept rules are rules, but do think this one is bonkers... There is no image of the band, but you can't use an album cover image just in case (just in case...) somebody takes a 'free one' at their next concert... Given the band have been around for 30+ years and a free image hasn't surfaced, I'm not sure there's much chance of that... And that's without Covid in the mix. But no matter how stupid a rule it may appear, a rule is a rule as I say... I wonder if there's a way of saying: "hey guys, this is bonkers and should maybe looked at?"

Anyway, I've flown off on a tangent, emailed the band direct via their UK agent and asked for an image. Let's see what comes of that.

BTW, what does that automated message on the image page actually mean? If I understand correctly it suggests the image is shrunk in size and won't be deleated? Or does the above trump the automated bot thing? I suspect it might. Stay safe.SurfaceAgentX2Zero (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC).

Replied at user's talk page. -- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Bukit Alpha Balikpapan image

Hinorisakamachi Sorry, if you may ask what template do you usually use for the cc image on the website link? Because I can't fix it. Please give feedback, thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hinorisakamachi:There is no CC license tag that can be applied because it is not released under any Creative Commons license. The site copied the image from here. The twitter post makes no mention of any CC licensing. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hinorisakamachi I've updated, but still can't. am I wrong cc or not on this link? Please requested for the feedback, thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hinorisakamachi: The image needs to be released by the copyright holder under a free license. The twitter post of the image has no licensing statement. There is no correct CC license to apply to the upload because the image is not licensed under any Creative Commons license. You cannot use this image on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Khadempour322

Hi Whpq. You might want to take a look at c:User talk:4nn1l2#مزاحمت یک کاربر and c:Special:diff/Khadempour322/565734040 because both posts are about you. Perhaps Khadempour322 is unaware of WP:HA#NOT, but they also seem to be just as unaware of C:COM:L and WP:NFCC. At some point continuing to issue warnings loses its meaning; so, as unpleasant as it sometimes may be, you may need to go to either WP:ANI or c:COM:ANI to seek administrator involvement. — Marchjuly (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Just in case you might not have noticed. Even without this happening, this account seemed to determined to sail full-speed ahead into a block. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Yes, I saw the sockpuppet tag on the user page. Whpq (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh well, Obladi blada. There really is just such a fine line between stupid and clever. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Mexith8670

″Note - Youtube videos that have been released under a Creative Commons license specifically states it in the video description (clock more). This video has no such license declaration.″ Could you expand on this? I struggle to understand what I have to do to validate a screenshot image from Youtube, as most pages seem to manage without being harassed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexith8670 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mexith8670:Youtube videos are copyrighted. Some Youtubers choose to release their videos under a Creative Commons license. If they have chosen to do this, then there is an explicit statement. On my web browser, when I am on the page for a video, I can click on "Show more" in the description. If the description has a license statement with "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)" then the video is freely licensed, otherwise it is not. For example, this video has a Creative Commons license. -- Whpq (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about image

If a wikipedia article is created by me and no image is uploaded by me so will it be accepted?Badassboy 63637 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Badassboy 63637: It is unclear to me what you are asking. Are you asking if you article is acceptable without an image? -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes i am asking that onlyBadassboy 63637 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Badassboy 63637: There is no requirement for any article to have images. So the lack of an image is not a reason for an article to be unacceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you and i am sorry :(

Are you auto tagging?

Was this your doing, and was it an auto tag: :File:Tuesdee Testa waves crop to standing ovation.jpg (log): CSD F7 (Db-badfairuse); additional information: {F7 rationale: AP photo}; notified Atsme (talk · contribs) 11:17 am, Today (UTC−4) ??? What are you referring to as "badfairuse"? Atsme 💬 📧 16:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme: The image is an Associated Press photo. See WP:NFCC#2 and WP:F7 point b. Yes I tagged the photo although I do not know what you mean by "auto tag". -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but both of the reasons are invalid and do not apply to this image. It cannot be replaced - it was a first, it is historic, it has significant meaning to the discrimination of female jockeys for centuries until 1968 when female jockeys like Crumb and Testa made history. I have contacted Fastily and am challenging the reason for your tagging. Just point me in the right direction to get the image restored. Atsme 💬 📧 17:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme: Contacting the deleting admin is the correct procedure. See also WP:DRV Whpq (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I've re-reviewed the image and find myself in agreement with Whpq's assessment. This image is an Associated Press photo (i.e. a "press" image), and unless this photo itself is the subject of the article, it will be eligible for WP:CSD#F7. Companies such as the Associated Press and Getty Images are reliant on the income generated from licensing fees/sales of copies of these images, and we try to be respectful of that here on Wikipedia (hence the "commercial opportunities" clause in WP:NFCC#2). I know AP photos are nice, clean, and high quality, but is there another image you could use in its place? :-) -FASTILY 22:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page watcher) Hi Atsme. I can't see the file that was deleted, but just going to point out for reference that fair use and non-free content are not exactly one and the same when it comes to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There are lots of photos that would meet the definition of fair use that Wikipedia could possibly use, but doesn't because Wikipedia's policy was set up to be more restrictive that US copyright law in some ways. Files which are deleted for "Invalid fair-use rationale" reasons are usually done so per WP:F7 and this most likely because the file fails to meet WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2, but also sometimes be of WP:NFCC#8. There are ten non-free content use criteria that each use of a non-free file needs to meet, and failing even WP:JUSTONE is enough for the use to be non-compliant. Again I can't see the file, where it was being used or how it was being used, but perhaps you'll find some helpful information in WP:FREER, WP:NFC#CS, WP:NFCI (item 8), WP:ITSHISTORIC and WP:DECORATIVE. The non-free use of "historic" photos can sometimes be tricky to justify because it's often the even that the photo is associated with that is what's really "historic" and not photos taken at the event. Usually, only photos which themselves have received some sort of critical commentary over the years (maybe for some controversy they created, maybe they won major awards or otherwise had a large impact on Society in some way) are the ones which are considered historic when it comes to Wikipedia; in other words, simply being old or showing something or someone discussed in an article doesn't make a non-free photo automatically "historic" and there generally needs to be some reason that not seeing the photo would be detrimental to reader's understanding of what they're reading in the article. If you can remove the photo without there being any real detriment to the reader's understanding or can replace the photo with another similar photo without there being any real detriment to the reader's understanding, then the justification for non-free use isn't very strong to begin with. It can be hard to assess a non-free use when you're the one who uploaded the file and added to an article because it's hard to step out side of yourself and assess things as a general reader; this is why there's WP:FFD for cases where they might be a disagreement over a particular non-free use. Just for reference, I have both Whpq's and Fastily's user talk pages on my watchlist because they both do lots of work with files. Both have a very good grasp of non-free content and how relevant Wikipedia policy tends to be applied to non-free content use. That doesn't necessarily mean a mistake wasn't made in this case, but neither of them is the type of editor who goes around tagging or deleting files (non-free or otherwise) just for the sake of doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: For reference - File:Tuesdee Testa waves crop to standing ovation.jpg, image, description page -FASTILY 23:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Based upon the links provided above by Fastily, the file seems to have WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2 issues. There's been a pretty long-standing consensus to not allow non-free photos of still-living persons (even when used for primary identification purposes in main infoboxes) per NFCC#1, except perhaps in certain cases (see item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI) where an individual's physical appearance itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary and is one of the main contributing factors to their Wikipedia notability. Simply wanting to use a non-free image to show how someone looked in their prime is generally not considered a sufficient justification for non-free use. Since Tuesdee Testa is still living, it would be hard to justify a non-free image of her just for that reason. Even if that hurdle could be cleared, there's still the NFCC#2 issue with commercial use that would need to be met for the file to be considered OK. Then, based upon what's written for the "Purpose of use" in the non-free use rationale that was provided, I don't see how this or any non-free image is needed to support article content about "Female jockeys first opportunity to obtain a jockey license and race at sanctioned race tracks." would meet NFCC#8. How would seeing this image support such content so that not seeing it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding? Did reliable sources comment on the photo in such a way or was it just a photo that appeared in a newspaper article which discussed such things? Again, this might be a bit of subjective assessment, but there seem to multiple WP:NFCCP in play here and only one of them needs not to be met for the use to be considered non-compliant, and I don't think a consensus could be established for this file's use at FFD for NFCC#1 or NFCC#8 reasons, even if NFCC#2 wasn't an issue. There might be some older images of Testa out there that could possibly be licensed as c:Template:PD-US-no notice or even c:Template:PD-US-no notice advertisement, but it would be hard to justify the use of any non-free file here for primary identification purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's input and want you all to know that I have carefully considered everything you've put forward. I will add that as a regular member of VRT, particularly Commons permissions (formerly OTRS), I am pretty well versed about free use vs fair use images, not to mention my former career and the fact that I've maintained an error & omissions policy for ages, although I am not infallible. I am confident that my use of the image is definitely fair use per the template Non-free historic image because unlike Commons, en.WP can and does utilize fair use images for that purpose. Furthermore, WP would not be the first to use that image under fair use as indicated here, and here, along with a hundred or so others. The reason the deleted image passes as fair use is quite simply that it is not just a picture of a jockey that can be substituted by another picture; rather, it is the photograph of a moment in the history of a society (on a global scale) that once prohibited female jockeys from obtaining a jockey license because of their gender. The person in that picture set a significant milestone for women's rights at that moment in history. She set a record as a first female jockey in history to not only race at a major track but to win at Santa Anita. She received a standing ovation from a crowd of over 45k people, and that image depicts her riding down the stretch waving her crop to the cheering crowd. It is not only historic, it is educational and it resonates loudly to women around the world. WP is an educational resource, so we are covered under fair use to use that picture. I will gladly reduce the size of the image to more closely accommodate our fair use criteria, if that satisfies the concerns expressed here, but realistically, WP is neither hindering API from earning income for that photo nor should we consider it our job as WP editors to protect the copyrights of professional photographers over the needs of our project because that places us in a far more precarious situation than does fair use. If anything, the use of that image with the API text attached serves API in a positive way; i.e., exposure, and tells our readers where to license duplicates. I cannot remove the API stamp but either way, it has no bearing on fair use. Atsme 💬 📧 23:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that the use of the file would somehow violate the concept of fair use as covered under US copyright law. It almost certainly wouldn't. What is being said is that the use of the file doesn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, more specifically one or more of the ten criteria listed here. You seem to be bascially arguing WP:ITSFAIRUSE, but you'd be better off trying to argue how the file's use meets all ten non-free content use criteria, particularly WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8. As I mentioned above, the long standing consensus has been to no allow non-free images of still living persons to used for primary identification purpose, except under certain conditions. Same goes for NFCC#2 when it comes to photos commercial use concerns. It makes no difference whether these photos are being used on other websites even if they're being used under a claim of fair use when it comes to Wikipedia because relevant Wikipedia policy has been intentionally developed to be more restrictive than fair use. The application of WP:NFCC#8 can be more subjective than the other two and this is what much discussions about non-free file use that end up at FFD usually are about; however, all of the stuff you wrote above about Testa applies more to her and her achievements than this particular photo and we shouldn't be really interpreting the photo as meaning all of those things unless reliable sources are interpreting the photo as such. Trying to do so is sort of like WP:OR and WP:SYN, but only with respect to a photograph instead of textual content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. It appears you don't quite understand the significance of that photo, so I have nothing more to add. Happy editing. Atsme 💬 📧 01:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're disagreeing about. Are you disagreeing what I wrote about fair use and Wikipedia policy not being the same? Are you disagreeing about NFCC#1 and NFCC#2? My guess is that you're probably disagreeing about NFCC#8 which is fine and which is something that probably can be discussed further, but it will make no difference if the NFCC#1 and NFCC#2 issues can be resolved. FWIW, I'm not trying to force you discuss something if you don't want to discuss it. I'm not sure and maybe Fastily can clarify, but perhaps WP:DRV is an option if you want to further contest the file's deletion. Anyway, happy editing to you as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wow. A huge FFD seems to have materialized on my talk page. I will just state why tagged this for WP:F7. The image is from the Associated Press. That is not under dispute. As a press agency image, the established policy for use as a non-free image is that the image itself must be the subject of significant sourced commentary. That is so uncontroversial that it is codified in speedy deletion criteria. I reviewed the article and the image did not have such commentary so I tagged it for speedy deletion. The deleting admin has already reviewed the contested deletion and stated that they agree that the deletion is appropriate. It looks like the discussion is going to go around in circles. The next step is really WP:DRV as further discussion here will not result in any sort of formal decision. -- Whpq (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, is right - the lead of that article is the commentary about that picture and what made her notable - THAT race at Santa Anita - THAT picture is THAT race. It depicts her reaction to that historic FIRST WIN. I was adding the material when you nominated that picture for CSD. How can I explain it anymore clearly than what I have already done? It IS fair use of the image and Fastily should restore the image. Atsme 💬 📧 02:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Atsme: That is not commentary about the image. That is commentary about the victory which the image depicts. Regardless, the next step is WP:DRV as user:Fastily has already declined to reverse the deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)