Hosta

Archives

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

Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

What are the rules around copyright/FoP for play sets in the U.S.? Would I be justified in uploading a photo of w:Shear Madness, even though the set is copyrighted? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sdkb. I'm assuming you mean props, background scenery and other stuff that is used on stage during the performance of a play. I don't think any of that would be considered something covered by c:COM:FOP United States since I don't believe the US FOP applies to interior photography. Something more akin to c:COM:CB#Museum and interior photography might be more relevant, but even then it would depend on the amount of creative and artistic attributes of set.

If you were just taking a photo of the entire stage in which the set was visible but incidental to the primary focus of the photograph, then such a photo might be OK and the set considered to be de minimis; on the other hand, if your photo focused on an individual element of the set and this element was something considered to be more creative/artistic (e.g. painting-like backdrop, costume, poster art) than utilitarian (e.g. household furniture, building facade, streetlight), then you might have a problem. There are probably lots of gray areas where certain photos might be OK depending on who you ask and the specific nature of the photo. That's why it's probably a good idea to ask about this at Commons and if possible provide a specific example of the type of photo you would like to upload.

In addition, to the copyright status of what's photographed, you would also need to consider the copyright status of the photo itself. If you take the photo, then you can release it under a free license that Wikipedia accepts; however, if it's a photo taken by someone else, you will need their c:COM:CONSENT to upload the photo regardless of the copyright status of the set.

Finally, none of what I posted above has to do with non-free content since FOP isn't really relevant when it comes to non-free content and Commons doesn't accept non-free content of any type. If you're asking about whether such a file can be uploaded as non-free content, please provide more information about the type of photo and how you intend to use it. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is quite restrictive and there are ten non-free content use criteria that need to be met each time a non-free file is used, and meeting some of these crtieria can be quite hard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that info! Emailed you with the photo. It's of the stage as a whole, but the set is the main thing on stage, so I don't think there's any de minimis argument. I took the photo. Using it as a non-free image would be a possibility if it doesn't end up being free. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sdkb: There was really no need to send me anything by email. Even if I said, "Sure, looks fine, go ahead and upload it", there's no guarantee others would agree or that the file would never be nominated for deletion. Moreover, any comments I make regarding the photo are going to be meaningless to others who are unable to see it. FWIW, many venues have "house rules" in which they say "photography is not permitted" for one reason or another. These rules might be formally stated in some way on a ticket stub or a sign, or they might be things that someone like an usher or staff member verbally tells patrons. For the most part, though, they seem to be more of a "moral right" matter than an "image copyright" matter, and Commons and Wikipedia isn't too concerned about the former per c:COM:NCR and v:Museum photography. Of course, if you're a regular customer of a business that tells you not to take photographs, then ignoring them might create problems between you and the business; those problems, however, don't usually seem to end up being copyright violations but things involving private property laws, public safety laws or other local laws/ordinances. Things could even vary quite a bit depending upon where the photo was taken. So, when trying to take a photo at an event and you're approached by a staff member who says "no photographs are allowed because of copyright", they might just be repeating what they were told to say because people taking photographs detracts from the experience of others at the event who are complaining about it. What you would need to do is check your ticket stub or what the official policy is of the venue and then figure out if uploading such a photo to Wikipedia or Commons can somehow come back a bite you in the butt in some way. The thing about the free licenses that the WMF accept is that they pretty much allow unrestricted commercial and derivative re-use, and Wikipedia/Commons are very well-known websites. The combination of those things might make it more willing for a copyright holder to try and claim a photo is an infringement, then if you uploaded it to your personal social media account. This doesn't mean they would be necessarily justified in doing so, but rather something that they might feel like an image uploaded to Commons is more of a "threat" to their commercial interests. The copyright holder might still feel that even uploading the file as non-free content still violates their rights in some way and argue its an invalid claim of fair use to do so without their permission. Anyway, whether your photo is really a copyright violation is probably something you would need to talk to a copyright expert like an intellectual property attorney about if this really concerns you. For reference, I did find this, this, this and this, but there's a lot more online about this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the uploader does not have proper permission to use this image File:Daniel Logan (DALO).jpg based on their comments about the source of the image here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Logan (DALO). I have no experience in this area, so I bring it here.  // Timothy :: talk  12:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image is listed at Files for discussion so the determination of what to do will happen there. There isn't a need to open a second discussion outside the FFD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The AFD won't deal with any issues with the image. You're going to have to nominate it for deletion at Commons as the image was uploaded there. Linking to the AFD where the admission that the uploader didn't have the appropriate permission will help though. Nthep (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did the bot do this? What makes this one campaign logo different from any of the other campaign logos used on this page and across Wikipedia? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi BottleOfChocolateMilk. Actually, there's really no strong encyclopedic reason to use any of those campaign logos in that particular article, and I've gone and removed them. However, the reason the bot removed the one you're asking about has to do with it being licensed as non-free content. Even though all files may seem to the same when you see them being used in articles, they're often licensed differently and it's a file's licensing that determines how it can be used on Wikipedia. Non-free files are required to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and there are ten criteria that each use of a non-free file needs to satisfy. The bot removed the file you're asking about because it's use didn't comply with non-free content use criterion #10c; this is why the bot included a link to WP:NFC#Implementation in the edit summary it left when it removed the file. Each time a non-free file is used, a separate, specific non-free use rationale needs to be added to the file's page explaining how the relevant use meets Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The bot that removed file has been tasked with finding non-free files lacking such rationales and then removing them from articles. When the file File:Logo John Wood For Mayor.JPG was uploaded, the uploader provided it with a non-free use rationale, but didn't specify where the file was going to be used: they mistakenly added "n/a" to the |article= parameter instead of the name of an article. Since the bot checking on this file was not able to interpret this as being for the article 2023_Philadelphia_mayoral_election, it removed the file. However, even fixing that error most likely wouldn't enough the justify the file's non-free use in that article since the use of non-free content in tables like the one in that article is considered to be WP:DECORATIVE for the most part and it almost never allowed per WP:NFTABLES, WP:NFLIST, WP:NFC#CS and MOS:LOGO. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last year I uploaded this image as fair use for identification in our page on the Delaware Blue Hen. I've just adjusted the crop on it, and find myself less than certain that it is really acceptable under our criteria, so I'd appreciate some feedback from others. (Note: it seems to have a complex earlier history including a statement of permission in 2005 and a transfer to Commons in 2011, incomplete details on request; I can't find it on Commons now). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly is at issue? This looks like a non-free, copyrighted work that has been devalued (cropped and shrunk to <100k pixels), with a fair use rationale provided. It is the image used to depict the subject of the article, the only image used in the article, and it is used in only one article. It was sourced from a state government website, which further minimizes commercial loss because state governments are not commercial enterprises (though of course they do have the right to earnings from their copyrights). It seems to tick all the boxes for Wikipedia's fair use rationale as far as I know.

However, Wikimedia, as an archive, does not actually use images. Therefore, fair use cannot apply to Wikimedia. This picture could not be stored on their servers, per policy, which is why all fair use material used on Wikipedia must be stored on Wikipedia servers, with fair use rationale in place. This all looks proper to me, but I'm not exactly an old timer here. I've had a crash course on these issues due to a few recent blunders of mine, so I'm kinda studied up on this topic. I hope others will also chime in. Dcs002 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Dcs002, I agree that on the face of it it looks OK; however, this chicken still exists (in tiny numbers), so one could argue that a free image could be created at any time. That's why we don't allow non-free images of living people; does the same also apply to living chickens? On US regional government copyrights, I checked this page, and found that it doesn't mention Delaware. And yes, I'm hoping that some user(s) with broad expertise in this area will chime in. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The question would be on how accessible these chickens are. If they can be seen by the public, then WP:NFCC#1 is not met. If these chickens are fenced off in a farm somewhere that is available only to researchers, etc then WP:NFCC#1 would possibly be met. I'll note that the current NFUR identifies it as not replaceable because "no free image identified" but that is insufficient to satisfy the replaceability criteria. Not only should there be no current free image, it must also be the case that a free one cannot reasonably be created. -- Whpq (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whpq, thanks for this, which confirms what I suspected. There are apparently about 40 of these birds at the University of Delaware, so access to them is not inconceivable. This is a very low-grade image and not worth the expenditure of much effort – I'm going to go ahead and delete it. Thanks all round, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just had a bot delete my image of a matchbook ad from 1960: Folies Bergere Tropicana Matchbook front closeup.jpg. It should qualify under copyright exception "PD-US-no notice advertisement". What is the best way to reactivate the file and get the proper exception template updated? Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gumballhead1of2 it was deleted from Commons for a lack of licence. You'll need to ask a Commons admin what the deficiencies were. Nthep (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the image File:Chucky the doll.jpg eligible for Creative Commons and permitted to be used without a non-free use rationale? It's a picture of a toy and it's on Wikimedia Commons, but I'm skeptical because it involves the trademarked likeness of a fictional character. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Thebiguglyalien. Since that file was uploaded to Commons, it's probably better to discuss things at c:COM:VPC since Commons is where any issues with the file will need to be resolved. However, my personal opinion is that this is probably a derivative work as explained in c:COM:TOYS depending on source country of the toy (i.e. the country where the copyright on the "Chucky imagery" is likely to have been registered). Tecnically, this seems like a case of Flickrwashing; most likely unintentional, but nonetheless it's still Flickrwashing. For reference, what bots like Flickrviewer2 do is check to see whether the licensing for the photo uploaded to Flickr matches the licensing for the file uploaded to Commons, and whether that license is OK for Commons; the bot can't look at a photo like this and say, "this might be a derivative work since it's a photo of doll" or "this photo doesn't look like the original work of the Flickr account holder". That's where human reviewers are supposed to step in, but unfortunately there are more Flickr files being uploaded and verified by bots than there are users re-checking the bots work. So, it's usually only when someone like yourself starts asking questions about a file that it gets more thoroughly assessed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm here to learn. If I take a picture of a toy that I own, any toy, say it was made by an American company, does the toy's presence in my image mean the toy company owns the copyright for the appearance of the toy, and my picture is a derivative work? Does the toy have to be the primary subject of the photo for that to apply? If so, could a photo of a child playing with the toy be used if the child is more prominent than the toy? I'm not sure where that line is drawn. How can we get free license on pictures of people without getting clearance from their clothing and jewelry manufacturers? I know that's a lot of questions, but it seems to me there's a great big gray area in there somewhere. Is there an easy answer? Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dcs002: Try taking a look at c:COM:CB and c:COM:DM since they provide some general guidance about the things you've mentioned. You also need to remember that everyone on Wikipedia and Commons is a volunteer and is just trying to answer questions to be helpful. There's no guarantee that anything posted will be 100% "correct" per Wikipedia:General disclaimer. The only way to 100% sure about something such as image copyright would probably be to contact a specialist in the field and ask them about a specific image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I'm asking because I want to be a better contributor. I have inadvertently run afoul of WP and Wikimedia copyright rules before, and I just want to understand them better, as well as learning more about copyright law as it applies to fair use (which peripherally affects my own life as a teacher on occasion, concerning what I may or may not distribute to my students, which of course is beyond the scope here, but useful to me nonetheless). I have found that a lot of the people here and on Wikimedia's copyright discussion pages have a great deal of expertise, though not lawyers. (I suspect some of them might be!) I will read those pages you linked. Thanks again! Dcs002 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, as I understand these (and other) pages, the only ways that toys are allowed to appear in images here is if their appearance is de minimis or if the toy is of such a simple design that it cannot be copyrighted. Or under a fair use rationale if on the WP server? Does that sound right? Dcs002 (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess the other option would be that the design of the toy is sufficiently old for its copyright to have expired (e. g. the classic Victorian doll designs). Felix QW (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, pictures of toys that are more than simple shapes are fully eligible for copyright (photos would be a derivative work). Masem (t) 21:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently uploaded this image, which has associated metadata listing all the copyright holder information. It was flagged for deletion for lacking information on copyright and licensing status. What can I change to make this file copyright-compliant? Would {{Non-free promotional}} be an appropriate tag? Thank you! Spagooot (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Spagooot. Non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per non-free content use criterion #1 or Wikipedia's non-free content use policy since it's almost always considered reasonable for a free equivalent image that can serve the same encyclopedic purpose as any non-free one to either be found or created. So, unless you took this photo yourself and want to give your WP:CONSENT for it to be released under a free license or you can get the person who did take the photo to give their consent, this file is going to end up deleted, most likely fairly quickly. It's OK if you didn't know this, but there's really nothing that can be done for a photo like this other than getting the copyright holder's consent. For reference, the copyright holder of a photo like this is in almost all cases the person taking the photo and not the subject of the photo; so, even if the subject said it's OK for you to use on Wikipedia, that's not going to be sufficient for Wikipedia purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spagooot:The page that image is used on might also be problematic. It looks like a brief resume. If you have an interest in that article, you should probably look at WP:GNG for general notability guidelines and WP:PROF for notability guidelines for professors. Nearly all of the sources on that page list him as a co-author, and what remains looks like department information pages, profiles, that sort of thing. As it stands, there is nothing I can see in the article that establishes his notability. He needs coverage in media other than his own publications and his own institution. (Citation trackers aren't coverage.) Sorry to be a downer, but the WP:AFD patrol might challenge that page, and I don't think it can stand up. Dcs002 (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!

Since a year, many of us Wikipedians trying to add logo of Bangladesh football federation.svg on Bangladesh national football team & Bangladesh women's national football team. But everytime someone is deleting showing the reason: It was removed in accordance with the non-free content policy, with which you are obligated to comply.

My question is If we can't use that public domain logo how Argentina, India, Brazil and other national football teams are using their respective federation logo?

Also, this exact same logo is currently using on Bengali Wikipedia Bangladesh national football team pages including under 17, under 20, under 23 and the national teams (both men and women). See here: Men's National & Women's National

Please help by adding the logo and add some sort of file protection so that others don't delete this again!

At the end, it represents Bangladesh to the world with pride!

Update: I asked many administrators but all of their answers were unclear and unsatisfied. The best they said the policy Bengali wiki is different from English wiki so you can't use that here. Ok I agree! Then how other national teams are using? Like: India Men's National Football Team, Brazil Men's National Football Team etc. Their federation logo also comes under public domain. So how are they using?

My simple request: Either add the Bangladesh Football Federation.svg logo to national football teams with file protection or delete all the federation logos from their respective football teams. They are also violating copyrights!

Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is that some logos are simple enough to be considered ineligible for copyright, and some are not. For instance, the logo of the Indian football federation is hosted on Commons as free, as is this logo of the Brazil football federation.

I do think there is something to discuss though, as Wikipedia uses the file we actually include for the Brazilian federation and the file we actually include for the Indian federation under fair use, in contrast to the situation on Commons.

I'm not sure if it makes more sense to discuss this here or simply to open a FFD entry for those two files though. Felix QW (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This keeps coming up but there is this discussion Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 December 14#File:Bangladesh Football Federation.svg and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive348#JJMC89 bot deleted the Bangladesh Football Federation logo from their National Team pages (both men & women). They all seem to come down to WP:NFC#UUI17 and that the logo is already used in the parent association article. Nthep (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Felix QW: There's sometimes inconsistency when it comes to logos like this between Wikipedia and Commons. Usually, it happens when a non-free logo gets removed from an article for WP:NFCC reasons, and the person who added the file to an article where it got removed either doesn't understand why or just doesn't care why and still wants to use the file as they please regardless. So, sometimes they or someone else mistakenly assumes that uploading the file to Commons automatically makes everything OK. Since Commmons also doesn't vet files before they're uploaded, these often go unnoticed until someone points them out. I wasn't aware that Commons was hosting the files you mentioned and local Wikipedia bots wouldn't be looking at them because they're Commons files. Perhaps Commons shouldn't be hosting those files, but that's a Commons issue. If they were discussed in a c:COM:DR and kept, then that would (at least in my opinion) be sufficient to justify there's no longer any need for local non-free files of these logos, but others might feel differently. Finally, Wikipedia isn't hosting those two team logos under fair use, but rather under as "non-free content". "Non-free content" is sort of Wikipedia's version of fair use, but it has intentionally been set up to be more more restrictive than fair use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue I see is that if we treat these files (the Indian and Brazil ones) as non-free content, then they probably shouldn't be on the national teams' articles per WP:NFC#UUI17, while if we take the Commons public domain claim at face value then it obviously doesn't matter. So in my opinion English Wikipedia does have to make a decision one way or another. Felix QW (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded to Commons are not subject to English Wikipedia non-free content use policy. Whether a file should be uploaded to Commons is a matter for Commons to decide. Now, if you want to start a FFD about the two local files and suggest they be relicensed to "PD-logo" based on the fact that they've been uploaded to Commons, then you may do that. If the consensus is that they are PD, then they'll probably be deleted in favor of the Commons files. However, none of those things are going to affect the non-free use of the Bangladesh team logo, unless the argument is that it too should be "PD-logo", and the fact that the OP is "unsatisfied" with the answers they received so far seems to be more of a case of them not understanding or not accepting that WP:OTHERIMAGE and WP:DELETEALL are almost never valid arguments for non-free use. I'll also add that a similar post was made at WT:CP#Why Bangladesh Football Federation logo is removing from Bangladesh national football teams???. Finally, I'll also add that neither Wikipedia nor its non-free content use policy is concerned with whether the logo represents Bangladesh to the world with pride!; that has nothing to do with why the file was removed from the individual team articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All I understand you have to accept biased opinion in Wikipedia also!

Thank you, HridoyKundu (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HI, I am creating the wiki-page of a noted living artist, I am using images from his website, the images are owned by him and copyright of the photographer who is listed. What kind of copyright tag do I use? Thanks for your help, Best, Rodney RLaTou (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The use of non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. In the case of a living person, even if a free image does not currently exist, a free one could still be created. As such, the use of a non-free image in an article about a living person almost always fails to meet WP:NFCC#1, the criteria about replaceability. So it is very unlikely that the use of a non-free image for your article would be acceptable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi RLaTou. Generally, the copyright holder of a photo is the person taking it, not the subject of the photo; however, if the photo is of someone else's copyrighted work, then there might be multiple copyrights involved: one for the photo and one for the photographed work. If, for example, you take a photo of this artist, you would be considered the copyright holder of that photo and you could upload it to Wikimedia Commons as your c:COM:Own work as explained in c:Commons:Licesning as long as you're willing to release the photo under a free license that Commons accepts. If the photo was taken by someone else, you can't upload the photo with getting the photographer's c:COM:CONSENT as explained here. If you take a photo of one of the artist's artworks, you would still own the copyright on the photo, but the artist would own the copyright on the artwork itself. In such a case, you couldn't upload your photo of the artwork to Commons without the artist's consent. Of course, whether the artwork is ever was eligible or is still eligible for copyright protection might depend on various factors (age of the work, where the work is installed, if the artist is deceased and how long ago they died, etc.), but generally it's best to assume the artwork is copyrighted at first and then work from there. In some cases, Wikipedia does allow photos of artwork to be uploaded locally as non-free content, but only when all the non-free content criteria mentioned above are met. Wikipedia, however, encourages us to try and keep non-free use a minimal as possible and not try and create a non-free image gallery of all the artist's artwork. Perhaps if there's one representative work that the artist is really known for that in its own right has received critical coverage in reliable sources because it illustrates the style the artist is known for, then that would be OK to upload as non-free content; however, a non-free image is not needed for each work mentioned in the article of each section of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for your clarifications, that's super helpful!

I am creating an artist web page and have permission to use the photos from the artist's website. I will follow the links and continue as you suggest -

All the best

RLaTou RLaTou (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi RLaTou. I'm not sure what you mean by I am creating an artist web page. Was your above question about uploading and adding images to An Te Liu? For reference, Wikipedia articles are not "artist's webpages" in any way, shape or form. Neither "An Te Liu" nor anyone connected to them has any editorial control over the content of any content written about An Te Lie on Wikipedia. Moreover, if you're editing on An Te Liu's behalf, you really shouldn't be directly editing or creating any such content yourself as well. If you're connected to An Te Liu in some personal or professional way, have been in contact with them or their representatives and have been making edits on their behalf, I strongly suggest you take a close look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and make sure you familiarize yourself with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding such editing. I've added some more information about this to your user talk page as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RLaTou, you uploaded these 3 files File:White Dwarf, 2012, An Te Liu.jpg, File:Title Deed, 2009, An Te Liu.jpg and File:Exhibition view, Mono No Ma, Gardiner Museum, Toronto, 2013.jpg as non free but with no permissions or licences. The artist's permission is required for any images of these works as is a freely licenced release of the photographer who took the specific images. Do these works still exist? In that case a new image can be created and released by someone else under a free licence we accept. ww2censor (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Marchjuly Thanks for your message. Yes, my mistake, wrong terminology, it is of course a Wikipidia entry not an artist web page. I had written many years ago about An Te Liu and more recently had noticed he did not have a Wikipedia entry - it is not a paid contribution on behalf of the artist. The images are from the artist's web site. Do I have to contact the artist to find out if the works exist and if he allows images of them to be published on Wikipedia? Is it required to get permission from both owner and photographer of images? Thanks, RLatou RLaTou (talk) 10:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RLaTou, Absolutely, yes. As the uploader the onus is on you to obtain the appropriate permissions which are unfortunately not necessarily possible in every case. ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Marchjuly, I am working on the permissions and hope to clarify all the images on the An Te Liu wikipage very soon. Best, Rodney RLaTou (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]