Marine Institute Vessels

Hello All, I would like to upload and use the ship images of the Irish Marine Institute on this page. https://www.marine.ie/site-area/areas-activity/fisheries-ecosystems/interactive-marine-archive/vessels

Reading this page https://www.marine.ie/site-area/online-policies/re-use-public-sector-information?language=en, it looks like they are happy for images to be used

Just double checking to be sure, before I upload the images?

Thanks. Finestat (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Finestat: Thank you for checking first before uploading. The licensing page you linked to above states the following: "It also covers non-commercial research and study." and "Not use the information for the principal purpose of advertising or promoting a particular product or service." Those two things imply that the IMI is placing non-commercial and possibly non-derivative restrictions on the re-use of its original content, and content licensed under such restrictions can't be hosted on Commons per COM:LJ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly Thanks for the reply, that rules out using IMI's images.

I have a further question. One of the images on IMI's page is for the Fort Rannoch. Viewing the HTML source, they said they got the image from http://www.grantontrawlers.com/Trawlers/Fort%20Rannoch%20GN%2014.htm

This website no longer exists, but the page is archived here https://web.archive.org/web/20160303203304/http://www.grantontrawlers.com/Trawlers/Fort%20Rannoch%20GN%2014.htm

The relevant image is at the bottom of the page where they said that they don't know the origin.

I guess I know the answer, but I will ask anyway, can we use an image from a website that no longer exists and whose provenance is unknown? Finestat (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Finestat: As with any other image from the Internet: not unless we have grounds to say it is either free-licensed or in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 21:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Thanks for the clarification. Finestat (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Finestat: Jmabel has already answered your question, but I just want to expand a bit on their answer. A website no longer existing doesn't necessarily mean any copyrights associated with its content also cease to exist. While many websites do host only their own original content, just as many also use content created by third-parties; so, without knowing more about the provenance of the photo in question, Commons will most likely assume it's still subject to copyright and won't be able to host the photo without copyright holder consent. Even, for example, if Granton Trawlers ceased business operations for some reason, whoever owned the company would still have retained ownership over its intellectual property if they didn't sell or transfer those rights to some other party. Even if the photo was the original content of Granton Trawlers, Commons would still need to verify copyright holder consent unless you can find another archived version of the same website showing the same photo that states it has been released under an acceptable free license.

FWIW, Granton Trawlers looks like it might've been sort of a fan page of about trawlers navigating in and around en:Granton, Edinburgh as opposed to the website of a company with that name; so. my guess is that the website's operator probably took photos from all kinds of sources and posted them on the site. So, what you might try in a case like this is doing a en:reverse image search for the photo. Sometimes a the same photo is used by multiple websites or originally appeared in some print publication. If you can track down where the photo came from, it might help in sorting out it's copyright status. You kind of need to be careful, though, of COM:LL. You could also try contacting the website (even though it's no longer up and running), it's email might still be working. Maybe whoever ran the website can tell you where the photo came from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, it sounds like images are a legal minefield.

Thanks for the information, which I am sure will be useful for others as well. Regards, Finestat (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Large number of copyvio uploads

In Special:ListFiles/Mkrax. I checked about a dozen bird photos from the set, and every one was a copyvio, mostly from facebook from up to 3-4 years before being uploaded here, but some from other published reports, etc. I suspect the entire set of uploads from this user are all copyvios, but I don't have time to deal with the whole lot. Anyone want some deleting work?! Thanks - MPF (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I randomly checked a few files and they had the same problem. Not sure if we really have to through every file. I would suggest giving the user some time to explain, otherwise Special:Nuke. --Isderion (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I left the user a message --Isderion (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Mkrax --Isderion (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of New Zealand state portrait of Queen Elizabeth II

I am in the process of tracking down copyright on File:The Queen of New Zealand, 1986 crop.jpg. There was some discussion in an RfC on Wikipedia about using it for the infobox photo of Elizabeth II on her article.

tl;dr: at this stage, I am leaning towards there not being permission for it to exist on Commons.

Uploading a logo?

I'm currently writing several articles for the German Wikipedia. All of them are about online marketplaces and internet auctions. F.e. Im writing articles about two or three relatively new auction platforms: Zaster.ch and Orsetto.ch (among others). I would like to include the platform logos in the articles (as is the case with eBay, Etsy, etc.). This should also be in the interest of the auction platforms. However, the logos can currently only be found on their websites. Am I violating copyright if I upload these logos? What's the best way to proceed? Hortulana (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hallo Hortulana

pauschal lässt sich das nicht beantworten. Man müsste prüfen, ob die Logos Schöpfungshöhe haben oder nicht, siehe dazu am besten Commons:Threshold of originality sowie ausführlicher de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen/angewandte Kunst. Zudem solltest du vorher prüfen ob die Platformen die Relevanzkriterien der deutschen Wikipeida erfüllen (siehe de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien). Nicht dass du dir Arbeit machst und der Artikel dann wegen mangelnder Relevanz gelöscht wird. Viele Grüße --Isderion (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Hallo Isderion,

danke Dir für die Rückmeldung. Sieht so aus, als ob es kein Problem sein sollte die Logos hochzuladen, da bei "Threshold of originality" als Beispiel das Logo von Amtrak verwendet wird. Die Logos von Zaster.ch, Orsetto.ch, Chrono24.ch, wodo.ch oder Delcampe.net etc. bestehen ebenfalls praktisch nur aus einem Schriftzug. Aber beim Upload Wizard weiss ich jetzt nicht welche Optionen ich wählen muss, damit das klappt, wenn ich nach der Lizenz gefragt werde.

Was die Relevanzkriterien angeht: Delcampe.net sollte kein Problem sein, Chrono24 womöglich auch nicht. Anders sieht das wohl bei Zaster.ch, Orsetto.ch und wodo.ch etc. aus - dessen bin ich mir durchaus bewusst. Es sind alles (noch) sehr kleine Plattformen mit einer kleinen Anzahl von Nutzern. Mit einem Wikipedia-Artikel könnten diese aber an Bekanntheit gewinnen. Gerade in der Schweiz hat die de:Swiss Marketplace Group eine ziemlich ungesunde Monopolstellung eingenommen, nachdem Sie sich alle anderen grösseren Portale (ricardo.ch, tutti.ch, anibis.ch etc.) einverleibt hat. Das Unternehmen dominiert den Schweizer Online Markplatz daher mittlerweile praktisch konkurrenzlos und strukturiert die Seiten auf ziemlich unpopluläre Weise um (viele Massnahmen werden erzwungen). Denen dürfte es durchaus gelegen kommen, wenn die anderen Marktplätze bei Wikipedia unsichtbar bleiben. Ich denke aber, dass es durchaus von Interesse sein könnte, wenn auf Wikipedia mögliche Alternativen für einen marktbeherrschenden Player aufgezeigt werden. Oder was meinst Du? Gruss

Hortulana (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Bei Wikipedia rühmt man sich ja eine Enzyklopädie zu schreiben. Das Aufzeigen von Alternativen zu marktbeherschenden Playern gehört da nicht zum Projektinhalt. Du kannst dir aber unter de:Wikipedia:Relevanzcheck weitere Meinungen einholen --Isderion (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Upload of 360° White House video to Commons

Hi!

I found this video, which would be very useful for illustration, but I am not sure if all conditions are met for an upload here. If so, maybe someones wants to upload it?

Thanks --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks probably good to me. The limitations stated there all seem to fall under {{Trademarked}}. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Just noting that there is modern and contemporary art featured in several parts of this video, I've never done much digging on the publication/copyright history for works in the White House/Historical Association collections but it's worth mentioning given precedent. The most obvious is Alma Thomas's Resurrection (1966), which Michelle Obama speaks about and shows for an extended period in the video, but I see some other unidentified but clearly modern/contemporary works in several shots. 19h00s (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

1966 in the U.S. you would have needed to give a copyright notice. I do not know whether Alma Thomas did, but most artists didn't. FWIW, I did not look at much of the video, just trusted the licensing info on the page. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I assume Thomas most likely didn’t add a notice (have never seen a notice on her paintings before). Just wanted to flag in case someone knew differently/wanted to dig on the other works. And definitely, the licensing is clear and the video would seem to be fine, wasn’t trying to question your judgement - I’m just an art nerd so I knew there might be a few works from the WH collection that theoretically could be non free. Thanks Jmabel! 19h00s (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

A slightly disappointing follow-up after I did one more Google: directly behind Michelle Obama, in the same room/shot as Resurrection, is Robert Rauschenberg's Early Bloomer (1998). It's definitely not free given the date. It could probably be blurred out pretty easily though. 19h00s (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

• I was initially thinking de minimis, but the painting takes up perhaps 1/5 of the screen when it's shown... bit hard to claim de minimis there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Sculptures by Michael Mohns

Wikipedia has been struggling to find a freely-licensed image of w:Rudolf Bultmann. The latest attempt is a photo of a bust of Bultmann as sculpted by German artist Michael Mohns (who is still alive). I guess this may be OK because Germany allows Freedom of Panorama - but shouldn't all the images of Mohns' works under Category:Sculptures by Michael Mohns be tagged with with FOP templates for both Germany and the USA? Currently they have no FOP tags. Muzilon (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@999real: Not sure why you marked this as resolved when there haven't been any replies to my query? Muzilon (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I added the tags  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Muzilon (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Threshold of artistic merit for "simple" photographs

There was recently a DCMA takedown for a portrait here, a copy of which can still be found on Google image search by looking for the file name. Anyway, before deletion it was tagged as "PD-Brazil-Photo" which says that "photographs not considered to be artistic creations" are PD. A couple of others countries have a similar standard. In this case the image was actually nominated for deletion in 2022 but was kept due to supposedly being non-artistic. I've started a couple of DRs myself in the past where the photograph seemed artistic enough to be copyrighted but was ultimately kept because other people disagreed. It seems like the standard is usually to just claim the photograph isn't artistic regardless and hope the closing admin buys it.

I think there needs to be better guidance on what makes a photograph artistic or not. Like a clear guideline with examples. There's Commons:Copyright rules/Photographs but it's kind of convoluted and doesn't really clarify things except for saying what makes a photograph artistic is unknown in a lot of countries. I don't think that's clear enough for any kind of guideline having to do with copyright though. So I'm posing the question in hopes that maybe we can come up with something clearer and based on an actual standard so there's less chance of the same thing happening again. Or at least so DRs for photographs aren't such a roll of the dice. So, what makes a photograph artistic or not? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a bad question. It depends on the country, of course. If you want to have an actual standard, you're going to have to do research on the various countries and the court cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I think there can be general guidance while also considering the standards of specific countries. They aren't mutually exclusive and that's how it works on here in other instances. The current practice of essentially giving all photographs a free pass regardless of how artistic they are clearly doesn't work though. But I'm more then willing to discuss the standards of specific countries once there's a general idea of where the line is. It's just pointless do that without one IMO because in most places it seems to be "unknown", which isn't any kind of standard. There's nothing to research or discuss at that point. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

IIRC, the image has an artistic pose beyond a mere snapshot, but I don't know Brazilian law, and I'm certainly not going to contest its DMCA takedown. However, to be on Commons, a file must also have a free US license. That means an image might be PD in Brazil but not PD in the US. Laws can be strange. The Great Gatsby was PD in New Zealand (PMA 70) while still copyrighted in the US (95 years after publication). US law protects the mere snapshot, so even if an image is PD in Brazil, it may not belong on Commons. I do not know when the Escritora photograph was taken. COM:HIRTLE says if something was published after 1 March 1989 and is in the public domain in the source country as of the URAA date, then we use the US rules to determine copyright duration. So the Brazilian simple vs artistic distinction may be irrelevant for Commons. Glrx (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Glrx: You make a good point. The copyright status of photographs is kind of weird to begin with because there's rarely an indication of prior publication to base the PD claim on. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Glrx: It is relevant for Brazilian photos from the 1980s, assuming they did not comply with US copyright formalities. If simple, they would have been PD in 1996 in Brazil and therefore PD in the US. If not simple, they would have been under copyright in 1996 in Brazil and had their copyright restored in the US by URAA. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

As others have mentioned, the "artistic" criterion for photographs is country-specific. In the case of Brazil, the law as written is fairly vague; what we have is summarized at COM:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil#Photos. The only clear guidance we have regarding portraits is that "fotografias destinadas a documentos de identidade, produzidas por máquinas automáticas, não são obras artísticas" (photographs taken for identity documents, produced by automatic machines, are not artistic works). That's a fairly narrow exception; I don't think we can generally rely on it for portraits. (And, to be clear: there are exceptions for other categories of photographs; this statement is specific to photos of individual people.) Omphalographer (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

A seal of Queen Melisende drawn by Antonino Amico

Here I found a picture of a seal of Queen Melisende. The picture is from the 2015 Die Siegel der lateinischen Könige von Jerusalem by Hans Eberhard Mayer & Claudia Sode. The article I linked says that the seal "has come down to us through the drawing by Antonino Amico, a Sicilian priest and historian of the 17th century".

I would be very grateful for answers to one or both of the following questions:

1. In which publication by Antonino Amico might one find the drawing of this seal?
2. What would be the copyright status of the image that appears in Mayer & Sode (2015) if it is based on Antonino Amico's 17th century drawing?

Surtsicna (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: On your first question, no idea, but on your second, if it is a faithful reproduction then it presumably would have no copyright of its own. - Jmabel ! talk 23:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Is this actually a copyright registration?

G.C. London Publishing published several wrestling and boxing magazines in the 70s and 80s, they almost always used an invalid copyright notice. Some files from wrestling magazines were deleted because of a copyright registration in 1992, but they are listed as "Recordation" not "Registration" and "Notes": "Assignment of copyright" between 2 parties. There would have been 4 years of valid copyrights to transfer since 1989, plus whatever issues were published with a valid notice  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

No, a recordation statement is just that -- it usually documents a copyright transfer for the record, but there is no validation of any claims in there, I don't think. It means the parties believe the copyright is valid, but it's not a registration itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

How to Share a Public Domain Image Scanned from a Later Publication

Suppose I scanned an image from a book that was published in the 1990s. And I scanned an old photograph dated back to 1867. The photographer died in 1915. The scanned image has both the year and the name of the photographer. So, it is 70+ years or 100+ years after the death of the author of the photograph. So the image is in the public domain. The problem is I scanned it from a book that was published in the 1990s. So, how can I show the image to the public as a public domain work without any questionable situation? Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

• @Rafi Bin Tofa: In most countries, the relevant dates are dates of creation, not publication, so in most countries such an image would simply be in the public domain. The major exception is the U.S., particularly for images of U.S. origin (and for some works first published elsewhere that were still in copyright in their home countries in 1996, but that last presumably does not apply here). Before we try to analyze, (1) in what country was this image created and (2) in what country was this image first published, and when? - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

  I think I understand now. I uploaded such a photo to Commons and became concerned about its copyright status. I am attaching the image as a thumbnail.

  

  In response to your questions:

  • The photo was originally taken in Chattogram, Bangladesh (then part of British India).
  • The images in the book I used came from various sources, but each one is specifically credited.
  • I collected the image from that book https://books.google.com.bd/books/about/The_Chittagong_Hill_Tracts.html?id=h-5tAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y The Chittagong Hill Tracts: Living in a Borderland - Willem van Schendel, Wolfgang Mey, Aditya Kumar Dewan - Google Books.

  Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I added a category for the author, and fixed the license. Yann (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Yann Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

ToO - Melvin Edwards barbed-wire installations

Another U.S. sculpture/installation ToO question. I think these works by Melvin Edwards are below ToO as they're just lengths of commercially produced barbed wire strung into simple geometric shapes, hung with simple, non-copyrightable materials (undecorated straight steel beams, screw eyes). Any differing opinions? They were all conceptualized as unpublished sketches in the 70s and then executed in the 2020s, so they would be eligible for copyright in terms of publication/formalities.

• File:Equal Memories 1970-2022, Melvin Edwards, Dia Beacon.jpg
• File:Gonogo 1970-2022, Melvin Edwards, Dia Beacon 1.jpg
• File:Gonogo 1970-2022, Melvin Edwards, Dia Beacon 2.jpg
• File:Gonogo 1970-2022, Melvin Edwards, Dia Beacon 3.jpg

Relatedly, I have my own photos of these two installations by Edwards, pictured at the same museum. I think they probably rise above ToO/could get copyright for arrangement, but am I wrong there?

• We Know The Way
• Iguneronmwon

Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Unless there's some specifically applicable precedent, my inclination would be to apply COM:PCP and treat this work as copyrightable. If Cloud Gate is explicitly copyrightable, I don't see why this couldn't be as well. Omphalographer (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair - I do personally think the first one of the two works uploaded is quite easily below ToO. It's a simple geometric shape - a diamond - fashioned out of lengths of wire, as opposed to the more complex/unique shape that is Cloud Gate. But if we think a DR is in order for either/both, no worries. 19h00s (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer No one else chimed in so I nominated for deletion, I still think they're simple expressions of geometric forms but I leave it to the DR process & admins. 19h00s (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer

Does this template ({{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}) need amending now that a German court has ruled (judgement in German) (commentary in English) that the Italian Cultural Heritage Code does not apply outside of Italy? Nthep (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Probably not. The text of "Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer" can probably not be modified, because the specific text results from a formal agreement between MiBAC and WM Italy and that template was made for a specific use with certain photos. The creation comment of the template says that it was created as a "new template for WLM". See the page Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC#The agreement. The summary on that page also seems to say that the photos that would be under this agreement, and thus that must be tagged with this particular text, must be under a CC BY-SA license, although that aspect is somewhat unclear in the summary. For more general cases, for photos of such monuments that are unrelated and unrestrained by that agreement, Commons has "Template:Soprintendenza", whose text is better suited for photos in general and, contrary to the text of "Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer", the text of Template:Soprintendenza can be modified as needed. See the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/10. A user marked Template:Soprintendenza as "deprecated", which IMHO was a mistake. That action was not satisfactorily explained. "Template:Soprintendenza" can be rehabilitated and used for files that are not meant for the special text of "Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer". The text of "Template:Soprintendenza" can be modified to clarify that the restriction applies to the use in Italy and does not apply to the use outside of Italy. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Copyright status of Associated Press photograph

Greetings, I came across a VOA article that has a portrait of his majesty Norodom Sihanouk that could possibly be eligible to be uploaded to Commons (image 9). At first glance, 1941 portrait would easily be able to uploaded since the minimum year at which URAA applies for Cambodian works is 1953 (if my memory serves me right). However, this photo was taken by the Associated Press, which would give this photo American copyright in addition to Cambodian. I would guess that PD-old-auto-1964 is applicable in addition to PD-Cambodia, but I wanted to make sure. TansoShoshen (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

If first published by AP in 1941, check renewals in 1968 and 1969. Odds are that copyright wasn't renewed and American law would likely be the only one that applies. Abzeronow (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@TansoShoshen: Hi, The template could be Template:PD-US-not renewed. Template:PD-old-auto-1964 is not in use with any file on Commons and it requires a known author. Ideally, we should try to find evidence of at least one example of the photo in a U.S. newspaper or magazine published between 1930 and 1963 without a copyright notice or whose copyright was not renewed. Photos distributed by AP might be accepted on Commons on the assumption that the copyright was inexistant or not renewed, but it would probably be better to have evidence. (Template:PD-old-auto-1964 was made in 2021. I don't know what type of case it might be for. Maybe some cases of simultaneous publication normally covered by Template:PD-US-not renewed.) -- Asclepias (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias Oh hey, I actually was one step ahead of you and uploaded the image. I did look to find any copyright renewals, but there's none I could find. I also did use the right template. To be safe, I put it in PD-two. Strangely, I can't find the original publication either. TansoShoshen (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Sony Pictures Television logo.svg

If File:Sony Pictures Television logo.svg is really too simple per COM:TOO US to be eligible for copyright protection (FWIW, I'm not saying it isn't), then perhaps the color version of the same logo uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:Sony Pictures Television logo color.svg doesn't need to be licensed as non-free content and could be relicensed as {{PD-logo}}. Both files are vector versions and the only difference seems to be the coloring. which tends to not be an element considered creative enough to warrant copyright protection. Any opinions on this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It does not look too simple to me. Simple geometric shapes imply straight lines, arcs, circles, triangles, rectangles, n-gons, and the like in a simple arrangement. When there are uncommon curves, the geometry may not be simple. I'd defer to COM:PCP. In addition, there is this copyright registration for a Sony Pictures Television logo. The registration may be for the logo or an animation by "Rick Scott" at Tigar Hare Studios,. There is also this registration]. Glrx (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

gweiloasiaguy re wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_James

Guys, I have been having difficulty understand precisely what license is required to change add a headshot to the webpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_James which was taken by a commercial photographer in Hanoi some months ago having hired him to do some new photographs. He speaks no English but I have twice had him translate to Vietnamese the license and he has then twice written and signed the license but it is apparently not sufficient to add the picture. If one of the senior ops here can please tell me exactly the license I need it would be so appreciated. I don't understand wiki terminology and if someone could just send a url or copy of the license necessary to add just one current picture to the wikipedia page as referenced I will have it translated into Vietnamese and then have the photographer sign the license which I had attempted but it was apparently insufficient. Thank you for your help. Jeffrey Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The license I have from him thus far I posted and don't seem to be able to add it in this box but it was apparently not sufficient. I appreciate any help but maybe it just can't be done? Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The license I have from him thus far is: errrrr - i try to drop and drag and it will not upload but I uploaded it before. What can I do from here or can you please suggest a url with the license form and I will arrange for the photographer to read it, agree it, translate if necessary, then sign and date it. The license required is for a full and open use of the photograph taken in 2025 which would be ten years after the last photoshoot used with Wikipedia ten years earlier. Help??? I can supply his email or mine which I think you have in the stream? Jeffrey Gweiloasiaguy email - jeffreyjames2028@icloud.com Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Would be so great if someone could reply that email as a couple of you guys did but I was not able to either understand or get the Vietnamese speaking photographer to agree - who by now thinks we are trying to own his house :) Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gweiloasiaguy: it sounds like you may be confused around how to provide a license for a third-party photo. Please read (or at least skim) Commons:Uploading works by a third party. Also: if you are specifically trying to write to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT), they are not monitoring this page, use Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Wow, it is very complicated. Have you been using the system for a long time? Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Love to meet the guy who designend it. Like a manual of flying an A380 :) Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I remember 10 years ago putting up this image and it was complicated then two years ago a very famous photographer in Sydney did new pictures and he would not participate in the compliance and wrote... 'Copyright provided for open use to Jeffrey James' then signed his first name. I went back to him with the requirements and he refused. Hence 2015 was last pic but I can only have 3 pics anyway, I learned at least that. Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

But thank you for replying and I will try to follow your advice tomorrow. Jeffrey Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gweiloasiaguy: One easy way around this: the photographer could upload his images to Flickr with a free license. This will prove us that he is willing to release them under a free license. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Arghhhh! They are already uploaded on X? And Linkedin? Either help or must be flickr? Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

It is in fact just one image - studio head shot. Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gweiloasiaguy: Who did upload the image on X and Linkedin? Flickr has a standard way to release images under a free license. Yann (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Yann, they have been uploaded on Linkedin https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffreyjamestv/ and also X at jeffreyjamestv But must be flickr? Also have website www.jeffreyjames.tv. But I think what you are saying in only on flickr so I need to see what it is and if it has a Vietnamese version. Perhaps I just get him to sign one of the other forms as advised... Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I have a webguy in Thailand called Tendo who uploaded and did the website. You will note the image on the front page is credited by Binh who is the photographer. Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is helpful but this is a 3 min showreel of anchoring and I think you will find it is the same guy - me :) Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

https://jeffreyjames.tv/on-tv/ Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gweiloasiaguy: You seem to be implying you're en:Jeffrey James above, yet you were referring to James in the third person in this April 2022 English Wikipedia Help Desk question. Perhaps you can clarify this? If you're not James, you shouldn't leading others to believe that you might be and you certainly should be posting any email addresses of James here on Commons. If, on the other hand, you're James, then that's OK; however, you should read en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest because the information it contains implies to directly you when editing English Wikipedia. You should also read en:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia because you mind find that information helpful too. Lastly, you might also want to take a look at en:Wikipedia:A picture of you; even though that's an English Wikipdia page, most of the information it contains would also be applicable to Commons. Plese note that English Wikipedia and Commons are sister projects, but they've each got their own respective policies and guidelines. Commons is mainly concerned about the copyright licensing of the content it hosts; so, who really are isn't such a big deal. English Wikipedia, though, takes things like conflict of interest editing much more seriously; so, the more transparent you're about such things, the less likely you're going to find yourself running into trouble. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for your note. My name is JEFFREY JAMES and I have been known by this name since beginning my work in media long ago. The reference - James said - is standard English to vary copy - i.e. John Brown claimed the bus came from the left before it intersected with the car. Brown further claimed that (his family name) also claimed that the driver of the bus was drunk. His full name is also referenced the first time but either can be used in English to tell a story. My website: www.jeffreyjames.tv shows how this is used and I am unaware of Wiki's policies so please excuse this. As a respected journalist and writer I am not trying to mislead anyone about anything. But thank you for your assistance and I will read through the references. I send you best regards from currently Thailand though I am from Australia. Jeffrey James Gweiloasiaguy (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

So are you also MediaguySW11? If so, you were first active on en-wiki in 2010 and were warned a that time about writing about yourself in Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)