Wikipedia:Media copyright questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Media copyright questions

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

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

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

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

Is this image in copyright?[edit]

Is this image in copyright?
SoWhy helpfully said at the ref desk: Seems as if was published in Infantry (magazine) in 1947 which is published by the United States Army Infantry School, so it's a work of the US government for the purposes of {{PD-USGov}}. On the other hand, per the Copyright Act of 1909, such publications might contain works that are copyrighted. In this case, there is no copyright notice on the image, so it should fall under {{PD-US-no notice}}. I suggest asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for expert input. Thoughts? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The magazine is identified as published by a corporation and it has a copyright notice in the name of an association. It is not a work of the government. You could search to find if the copyright was renewed. Some of its contributors are not government employees. Some contributors are military personnel but probably not contributiong to this magazine in the course of their regular duties. Some material is reproduced from other sources. In short, one should assume that the contents are not pd-us-gov. However, some particular contributions could be considered pd-us-gov if evidence can be found. There does not seem to be much information about the photographs. Many photographs look like they were probably taken by army photographers and thus pd-us-gov. Maybe you could find more information about this photograph in places like the National Archives, Army sites, other publications, etc. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I've sent an e-mail to the National Archives, but they will not get back to me until at least the government shut down is over so we shall see... Eddie891 Talk Work 23:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Where does it say it is published by a corporation? It says: As a government publication, Infantry is in the public domain except for those items where copyright information is posted. [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Hawkeye7, I guess the question is whether it was published by this National Infantry Association as it seems to suggest here [2], and then it is in copyright, or whether it is the Infantry Journal as it also seems to be, and if it is the infantry journal, it would be in the public domain. Additionally, if it is published by someone other than the US army, the publisher may be defunct Eddie891 Talk Work 01:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The copyright notice in your link seems to be for the diagram reproduced on that page. The copyright notice of the journal is in the first pages of each issue. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The question asked by Eddie891 in this section is about a 1947 issue of the Infantry Journal, published by "Infantry Journal, Incorporated", as stated in that publication, which is reproduced at the link provided in Eddie891's question. The question is not about a 2018 issue of the magazine Infantry, published by the Fort Benning School. According to this article, "the Infantry Journal ceased publication in 1950, when it merged with the Field Artillery Journal". The magazine Infantry may have some indirect link through a series of mergers of various publications, not entirely clear in that article, but that's not important. What matters is that the contents of the 1947 Infantry Journal cannot be considered to have been pd-us-gov, except contributions created by government employees in the course of their duties. It's very possible that the photograph of Ira T. Wyche is in the public domain, either as created by an Army photographer in the course of his duties or as copyright not renewed, but it would be better to have evidence. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Newspaper copyright question[edit]

A 1962 issue of The Kansas City Times included a photo of Herbert Maryon with the Emesa helmet. How would I go about determining if the photo is still under copyright? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason not to assume that such a photo is still under copyright. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


This removal of a logo is not justified since the logo is that of WGTN-FM. Unless only WEZV can have a fair use rationale, but the two stations air the same programming all of the time.— :Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee, is there a particular question you wish to ask? GMGtalk 18:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, clicking on "preview" risks losing everything if I go to find the diff.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
It looks like this bot is removing any instance where there is a fair use image with no link to the article that it is used in. Umm... User:JJMC89, when implementing this bot, did you consider that many of these instances may just need an added fair use rationale, rather than needing the image removed? GMGtalk 18:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a link to the article, but in this case, there are two radio stations that use the logo.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, there's a link now, because I added a second fair use rational for the other article. GMGtalk 18:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I noticed a note someone left about one of my edits five years ago. I finally fixed the issue.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────── I not sure if this file even needs to be {{Non-free logo}}. It seems simple enough per c:COM:TOO United States for it to be licensed as {{PD-logo}} and then tagged for a move to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Advert in the Eastbourne Gazette newspaper dated 29 January 1902 for Eastbourne Football Club versus West Ham United.jpg[edit]

I'm not sure this needs to be non-free assuming the original newspaper ad/listing was first published in 1902. Can't this be licensed as {{PD-US}} or maybe even {{PD-old-100}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:B2002 - Hackney Tram Depot, Adelaide circa 1925.jpg[edit]

Not sure this needs to be non-free, but if it does then I don't think it can be kept per WP:NFCC#4 and WP:NFCC#8. The non-free use rationale file states that this is a family photo, but there's no indication that it ever has been WP:PUBLISHED. It's probably not old enough to be WP:PD; however, if the uploader is the copyright holder, then it seems that this can be released under a free license since there's freedom of panorama for buildings in Australia. Even a family member of the uploader is the person who took the photo, this might be OK to be licensed as c:Template:PD-heirs and moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If it from the 1920s it would appear to be be {{PD-Australia}} and under section B1 of those guidelines also {{PD-URAA}} presuming it hasn't previously been published which isn't suggested in the description. Nthep (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Tell Me Something Good[edit]

Here are two links to YouTube audio recordings of “Tell Me Something Good" by Rufus and Chaka Khan: 1 and 2. Are they both “properly licensed”, i.e. fully suitable for use by Wikipedia? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

In short no, and it wouldn't matter even if they were. I see no indication that either of these uploads claim to be under a creative commons license. Even if they did, I don't see why these accounts should be officially linked to the publisher or writer or performers in a way that they would have legal ownership so that they could release the rights to the song. GMGtalk 16:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Link (1) above has this in the "SHOW MORE" section: "Licensed to YouTube by UMG (on behalf of Geffen); EMI Music Publishing, ASCAP, UBEM, CMRRA, SOLAR Music Rights Management, UMPI, and 6 music rights societies." I have enquired previously about this type of statement have been was told that this was adequate attribution. Would you not agree with that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: The video may be licensed for YouTube, but there's no indication it's licensed under creative commons. Compare this video, the last video I personally uploaded to Commons, where in the "see more" it explicitly states that it's licensed under creative commons, and includes a link that gets you specifically to CCBYSA 3.0. GMGtalk 21:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, yes I see that explicit statement. But would one not assume that the Rufus and Chaka Khan video is licensed for YouTube? YT must know what its account holders are doing, surely? Hasn't it actually added that information itself? Doesn't that also mean the video can be viewed legally by anyone using any link to it? If this is not the case, I'd suggest that the text at WP:YT needs to clearly explain this? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh. Wait. Do you mean linking to it? I assumed you meant uploading it. We may be talking at cross purposes. GMGtalk 21:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely. I am only considering links. Like the one in "External links" at Tell Me Something Good. Apologies if that wasn't clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah. I've been spending too much time on Commons. Yeah, the BrownPrider Funk link looks legit. I mean, they claim to have all their ducks in a row, and I would presume if they were violating copyright, with 210k subs and 150m views, you'd think they've caught wind of it by now. That's not exactly a throw away account. I'd say you're probably okay to link to it. GMGtalk 22:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, so how about link (2) above which simply has a bland statement "Provided to YouTube by Universal Music Group" and then later "℗ A Geffen Records Release; ℗ 1974 UMG Recordings, Inc." and "Auto-generated by YouTube."? Is that equally ok? equally legal? I'm keen to get to bottom of this, having been indeffed by User:Fram last year for posting links without checking properly. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The second link has <1k subs, and makes no claim on their about page that they've sought permission to properly use the content. That's the kind of account that flies under the radar spamming copyrighted content. It looks like it's almost an auto-generated collection of material, since if you look at the videos, they all have different uploaders, meaning the "topic" don't mean anything as far as integrity is concerned. But YouTube isn't great at removing copyrighted content in general; they are good at banning accounts that repeatedly upload it. Again, I'd say the first link is probably okay. I wouldn't touch the second link with a 10 ft pole. GMGtalk 22:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree strongly with you. I trust User:Arbor to SJ takes note. But those two "videos" are essentially audio only. (Is anyone going to argue that a separate copyright statement is required for any still image content, usually a record cover?) I guess it's a bit less clear cut for videos such as this one, which has the same clear license statements for "Music in this video", but says nothing about the video content (which seems to be the original official video)? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Umm...Yes. There would normally be separate copyrights. If you want to get way in the weeds, there would be a copyright for the writing of the song, the performance of the song, the recording/mixing of the song, the cover art to the work, the performance of the music video (possibly many copyrights), and then for the recording/producing of the music video. But presumably, when large corps are involved, those copyrights would usually be fairly centrally controlled (the artist usually gets boned in this process).
But the corps have been milking these songs for decades, and they're likely to get as much out of a YouTube video as they would out of Spotify, so it's not beyond the pale for them to give permission for use on Youtube in exchange for profit sharing. And again, when a channel gets to a certain level of notoriety uploading copyrighted content, and they claim to have their ducks in a row, it's hard to say that they don't, because they're still there. That process is a little opaque for us, since it goes 1) get permission, 2) upload copyrighted content, 3) don't get a DMCA takedown notice because you have permission. GMGtalk 23:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

A couple of responses to the long discussion above:

  • "Licensed to YouTube" simply means the record labels allow the song to be used on YouTube videos - not that a video clip containing a song is official. In YouTube's words: "The entities listed in the “Licensed to YouTube by” field are the music rightsholders who have agreed with YouTube to allow YouTube to use identified music in official and user-generated videos, and share in the revenue those videos earn on the platform."
  • Also, this 2015 article by Vice explains why YouTube has so many "auto generated by YouTube" videos for songs: "...YouTube's licensing deals with record labels allows it to dive through back catalogs in the aim of bringing more music online. The labels have an incentive to make sure their artists (and the labels themselves) make money, which is why they signed the agreement with YouTube in the first place." Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Reply to my own comment: I did notice that BrownPrider Funk, which uploaded the older video of this song from 2010, is a verified YouTube channel ("an established creator or is the official channel of a brand, business, or organization"), so the other video should also be a copyright compliant, acceptable external link. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for the clarification, Arbor to SJ. Happy for the discussion to get much longer, if necessary. So it seems either of those links are fine to use as External links. If one has better quality audio, as you suggested, I'd be keen to see the evidence. If the consequences of posting copyvio YT links are so serious, for both Wikipedia and for individual editors, I really think the sort of information you have presented above should be added, as useful guidance, to WP:YT. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I have thought about the issue of whether auto-generated YouTube videos are legitimate. On YouTube, it appears that there are many videos of the same design as the second linked video where the audio portion is music and the video portion is a static image of an album cover and textual information about the song/performer/album, along with a larger image of the album cover and a grayish gradient that makes up the background of the video portion.
In the case of CD Baby, the CD Baby Help Center has an entry about videos for songs being created on YouTube. Specifically, there are artists who are signed up with CD Baby in a manner that includes downloads and streaming. YouTube Music is automatically supplied with albums and songs from these artists, though it is possible for artists to opt out. It is also mentioned that the videos that YouTube creates from these audio tracks are separate from any user account that an artist has on YouTube. The help center also has an entry about how artists can be paid for having their music on YouTube Music. The first method mentioned is the system where YouTube creates videos from audio tracks supplied by CD Baby.
On Music Weird, there is a blog entry about auto-generated YouTube videos that may if nothing else be of interest. Since it was written in 2014, there is a note indicating that the blog entry was updated in 2016 and that CD Baby sends music to YouTube (possibly in addition to other streaming sites.)
From what it appears, at least some of these auto-generated YouTube videos are not necessarily viewable in all countries, possibly due to copyright issues. The previously-linked Vice article indicates that YouTube has entered into license agreements with third parties in order to be able to automatically generate and post videos that incorporate music, at least with regard to those parties. Still, it would be useful to know if auto-generated videos like the ones previously mentioned (in addition to this video of "Tell Me Something Good") can in general be considered legitimate for purposes such as external links in Wikipedia articles. --Elegie (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it would be useful. That's why I asked. User talk:GreenMeansGo seems to have doubts. Arbor to SJ sems to think think it's perfectly ok, and actually preferred. But many thanks for the info. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I mean, I'm not really carrying the banner either way. But I do think that when in doubt we should err on the side of caution. GMGtalk 17:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Good advice. I'm sure you'd find some editors who would typically say "never link to a YouTube video, just in case". It's just that, for me, if an article is about a piece of music, I don't see how all the background information in the world is really as useful as providing access to the music itself. Copyright permitting, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Determining as to whether a YouTube video is legitimate on copyright grounds is not always easy. One factor that comes to mind is if a video has been posted on the official channel for a record company or rightsholder or artist, which would suggest that a video is more likely to be legitimate.
The second video of "Tell Me Something Good" in the original posting and the YouTube videos that I previously listed (such as "Loving You") may be what YouTube calls an "Art Tracks." In the YouTube Help entry What is an Art Track?, it is mentioned that an Art Track video has album art and text about the recording title, artist, and album. (There is a visual diagram in the help entry that may be of interest.) It is also mentioned that Art Tracks are automatically generated. The help entry mentions that for YouTube to have "a single official, label-sanctioned YouTube version of every sound recording" is the goal of generating and posting Art Track videos.
The information in the help entry, along with information in another YouTube Help entry about creating Art Tracks indicates that uploading the data (recording, artwork, and metadata) for an Art Track has to be done via specific methods and it is implied that the functionality is only available to partners of YouTube who are managing content of theirs via YouTube's Content Manager. In other words, it may well be the case that uploading content for Art Tracks cannot be done by arbitrary YouTube users. Such a restriction would likely increase the chance that the content of an Art Track video is legitimate copyright-wise. (If it is possible to find legitimate streaming versions of music on YouTube by specifically seeking out Art Track videos, that would be great.) --Elegie (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
What you say may be fair and accurate. But it sounds more like your working hypothesis. I was seeking a straight answer to the question about clear statements such as: "Licensed to YouTube by UMG (on behalf of Geffen); ...." etc. etc. Are these statements indicative of legally published audio copies? The consensus answer seems to be "yes". In which case that's a quick and easy way to determine suitability for Wikipedia articles. This is the second time I have asked and the second time I've got a "yes". If there is a serious problem here, that no-one has spotted, I'd very much like to know. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
A written guide from a reliable source (or from YouTube itself) on how to find legitimate audio recordings on YouTube would be useful. However, I do not currently know of any such official guide. From what I can tell and from what has been said previously, YouTube has help information that indicates that certain videos ("Art Tracks") are most likely legitimate. In addition, it is mentioned that a music rightsholder can "claim" a video that incorporates their music. (From what I understand, it may happen where a record company or music publisher or other rightsholder allows the usage of their music in a non-official video with the arrangement that the rightsholder receives advertising revenue in conjunction with the video being viewed. In addition, YouTube mentions that uploaded videos are scanned for certain copyrighted content that is stored in a database as part of the Content ID system. As such, my guess is a video may be marked by YouTube as incorporating certain music without any action on the part of the uploader.) At the same time, this information is not all on one page.
For finding legitimate audio recordings on YouTube, there is a complication that would seem to apply to videos that were uploaded by arbitrary users (as opposed to being uploaded to an official channel) and which are not "Art Tracks": namely, that a rightsholder may have approved the use of their music in a video (possibly automatically via Content ID) but at the same time, the video incorporates other content (such as a slideshow of photos of a singer) that has not been properly licensed. Going with videos that are "Art Tracks" or which were uploaded to an official channel may be easier. --Elegie (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Hunter Industries Inc logo.svg[edit]

This is ineligible? I am not seeing any significant artwork vs simple typographyShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yep. US company. That's PD-text-logo. GMGtalk 14:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
So.. if someone can make a 'formal' decision on this, and update that file page...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done - Updated, transferred, tagged. GMGtalk 15:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Crown Prosecution Service images[edit]

Are images produced by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) under Crown Copyright? I'm particularly thinking of this image from this story on the Metro website for use in the 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash article. Althoug credited to the Press Agency in the Metro article, the image is clearly watermarked as being prouduced by the CPS. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The print may have been produced by the CPS but it's highly likely they won't be the copyright holder. More likely this is an eye-witnesses photo being used as evidence in the trial. A photo they probably sold to the PA after the accident. Nthep (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

File:ITV logo 2013.svg[edit]

Can this be converted to {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} or is the way the coloring overlaps just enough to push it above c:COM:TOO United States? For reference, I asked about this at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 November 11#File:ITV logo 2013.svg, but that discussion closed without anything be decided on whether this could be converted to PD.-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please clarify[edit]

If someone (in the case I'm using, User_talk:JJMC89 for the entry I created about Myra Page) worked for the The Moscow News, and I think it's important to highlight this fellow-traveler's experience in the USSR by adding the the logo of the newspaper where she worked to illustrate that connection visually, what specifically under Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Implementation overrides my original decision to include that image? Respectfully Aboudaqn (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

There was no separate non-free use rationale for your use, as required by WP:NFCC#10c. Even if a rationale had been attempted, the rationale would have been invalid because your use did not significantly increase reader understanding (as required by WP:NFCC#8) beyond what just text could have accomplished: Your use was essentially decorative, which does not justify the use of non-free content. —teb728 t c 20:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Regional Bell Operating Company Logos[edit]

I'm about to start making SVGs of some of the logos for the Regional Bell Operating Companies. Some of the logos are under 'PD textlogo', some are under 'Non-free logo'. The logos themselves are basically identical. Cincinnati Bell 'PD-textlogo', BellSouth 'PD-textlogo' vs. Ohio Bell 'Non-Free Logo', Bell Laboratories 'Non Free Logo' the only difference being the company name and sometimes the presence of a tagline like 'An Ameritech company' or similar.
The 'Bell System' symbol (the blue circle with a bell) is marked as being 'PD-shape'.
AntiCompositeNumber over at the graphics lab seed to think File:WestElecBassLogo.svg should be 'PD textlogo', when I was asking about an unrelated matter.

I want to know if we can decide on which it is: 'PD Textlogo' or 'Non-free logo', or what aspects in these logos make it 'PD' vs 'Non-Free' if it's not uniform across the logos.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 06:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi The Navigators. Sometimes the editor uploading a file is either unfamiliar with the concept of threshold of originality or uncertain as to how it might apply; so, they upload the file as non-free as a precaution. Other times, they might be copying what they see has been done for another logo that was licensed as non-free. Another thing to consider is whether the svg formating is in and of itself considered eligible for copyright protection separately from TOO issues. Some feel that converting a file to svg might create a new copyright since it involves some computer code as explained in c:Help:SVG#Copyright; for non-free files, svg might be a problem per WP:FREER if it's user created and not a file downloaded in svg format from an official source.
Assuming there are no problems with the Commons files and there are no svg copyright issues, I think it's probably OK to convert File:Bell Laboratories logo.svg to {{PD-logo}} and tag for a move to Commons. As for the File:Ohio Bell.png, I'm not so sure because that looks to be more than just simple text and a bell symbol: the text looks like a marble font of some kind and there appears to be a starburst image in the "A" of "American". These might not matter per c:COM:TOO United States, but there is a clear difference between this file and the other three you've referenced, at least in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Marchjuly. So, to confirm that I understand: A Before moving any SVGs to a 'PD-Textlogo' license I should first check with the original uploader if it came from anywhere other than an original source, and obtain the permission from or have the uploader themselves do the license change.
B The format that is simply the 'Bell System logo' & a company name qualifies as 'Pd-textlogo'. Logos like File:Ohio Bell.png may qualify for that as well, but are definitely more complex than the former which makes it less clear cut and requires more examining/discussing.
Thanks for the prompt reply.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 07:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
If you believe in good faith that a logo is too simple to be protected by copyright, then you can convert it yourself if you like. If someone disagrees with you, they either revert the change outright or they start a discussion about it somewhere. There's really no need to keep a {{PD-logo}} locally on English Wikipedia; however, sometimes a file is moved to Commons, but then subsequently deleted there for some reason. So, if you want to be sure, you can try asking for opinions at c:COM:VPC.
As for the source of the svg file, it's probably best to use a vector version officially created by the copyright holder since that is likely going to be the most accurate version with the original coloring, design, etc., but my guess is that many people don't and use files they find uploaded to other websites instead. I can't say for sure why the uploaders of those two file chose to do so as non-free content; maybe they created the svg versions from scratch and wanted them protected or maybe it was (as I posted above) just done because they weren't sure about the copyright status original logo. If they did so for the first reason, then there's no way to keep the file per WP:FREER because someone else could basically do the same and release the file under a free license. If they did it for the second reason, then may you can find the original source (png, gif or whatever they used) and make your own svg version, which you can then upload to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, with these logos, official SVGs likely never existed, as these brands/company names were mostly replaced by new ones by the mid-1990s. I'll ask the the uploaders what their reason for picking the license was, and tell them about the 'PD-Textlogo' & this conversation. Admittedly, I wasn't familiar with the concept of c:COM:TOO United States before I started editing, same is possible with them. If they won't change it then I'll upload my own under 'PD-textlogo' to the Commons and replace it per WP:FREER.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 21:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I see no problem with changing the license to some form of Public Domain (PD) license for all variants of the logo. My understanding is that the original Bell Telephone company never file for copyright or trademark protection for its "bell" logo. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 23:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation[edit]

See file: File:Goody_two_shoes_cigarette_ad.jpg

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: deleted an image from Nicotine marketing with the edit summary "fails NFCC#8, because the necessary discussion requires only quotation of the relevant text, no depiction of the image accompanying it; this also fails NOR/SYNTH, since the analysis is unsourced/unreferenced"[3] @HLHJ: restored the image with the edit summary "previously removed image, adding the sourcing it was removed for lacking"[4]

The image is copyrighted. I am not sure the image is allowed to be used in the article. The content added to the image fails WP:CAPTION. I suspect other images in the Nicotine marketing article are copyright violations. If there is a problem with one image there could be a problem with other images. QuackGuru (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)