This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions


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)

Insignias

OTRS agent (verify): request: we've received Ticket:2019010710004731 regarding File:Nort insignia.svg and File:Souther insignia.svg. The customer indicates he owned the CR and he uploaded the file first to Devian art as "all rights reserved". Please take a look. Regards. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

So is the sender claiming that they are not "YourGloriousLeader"? The Deviantart pics were uploaded a month before the Wikipedia ones. But perhaps the images are PD-Simple anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, he sais he is not the user:YourGloriousLeader and he uploaded the files before. Ganímedes (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
In which case the CC-0 is invalid as that license is not granted by another. However PD-simple could apply. What do others think? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The gif files File:Nort insignia.gif and File:Souther insignia.gif have been on Wikipedia since 2006 and they are tagged with PD-self. The png files on deviantart are from 2018. How would one tell that YourGloriousLeader's svg files are derived from deviantart's 2018 pngs more than from Wikipedia's 2006 gifs? Couldn't one say just as well that deviantart's 2018 images might be derived from Wikipedia's 2006 images? Or just that they are all independently derived directly or indirectly from the magazine? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks. Ganímedes (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Question about translation copyright

If I make my own translation from copyrighted material from French or German ( or any language) for use in a WP article, is it OK for it to be more or less a literal translation? I would cite it to the source, of course. Or should I treat my own translation as if it were copyrighted material in English and re-write my own translation in my own words? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

If you're translating content from another language Wikipedia into English, then you probably should follow the guidance given in WP:TFOLWP. However, if you're translating content you found in a non-English external source into English, then I believe all you need to do cite the original source. Unless you're simply copying-and-pasting someone else's translation of the source, I believe your own original translation would be a WP:Derivative work and you would be agreeing to release it under a free license when you add it to the Englist article. You might find some helpful guidance in WP:TRANSLATION. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!Smeat75 (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Image where the original website has been taken down

I found an image in use on Wikipedia where the image was originally posted on someone's personal website with a license. However, the website is no longer online. The image and the license are still available online through the archives from the Wayback Machine. Is that good enough to allow the image to be in use? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

That would still be suitable evidence. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

1955 copies of The Illustrated London News

This is a repost of an archived question.

Two copies of The Illustrated London News from 1955 contain photographs of, and text about, the Emesa helmet. Could someone please give me a sense of the copyright status of these issues?

1) April 30: Cover with two photographs (crown copyright indicated) and about two paragraphs of text. I assume that the photographs entered the public domain around 2005. Could the entire cover be uploaded to Commons? The only other elements of the front cover are the paper's logo (which may still be trademarked, but is too old for the copyright to endure), and the two paragraphs of text.

2) August 27: Single page with two photographs and text. The photographs are "Reproduced by courtesy of the General Directorate of Antiquities of Syria, world copyright reserved," which Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has indicated essentially just means that UK copyright law applies. In that case, and given that the copyright holder is an institutional author, what is the relevant length of copyright?

Thanks for any help. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

USAID copyright

I was looking for images to illustrate the Menstruation hut article Anna Frodesiak wrote and found this on Flickr, which says simultaneously that it's the work of USAID (United States Agency for International Development) and "all rights reserved". Wouldn't works by USAID be in the public domain via {{PD-USGov}}? Huon (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

No, that looks correct. USAID itself is an independent government agency, and PD-gov does apply to its works (even its policy page says this [1]). However, USAID Global Waters is a different organization. It is managed by USAID, but it is not an official part of the US Gov't [2]. As such we cannot presume PD-gov applies to them. --Masem (t) 00:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The flickr photo contans "Photo Credit: USAID/Nepal", suggesting USAID took the photo and that thus the work is PD-USGov. I would be inclined to say the work is PD-USGov. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I would agree that if we know 100% that a USAID employee produced that photo then it should be PD-gov, but I worry there's enough doubt towards that to avoid. If you explore other photos by that user at Flickr, there's others named to people, which may or may not be USAID employees. And unfortunately, with the shutdown, it would be hard to contact to confirm if they messed up the licensing or not. --Masem (t) 01:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

British Rail 'Double Arrow' & Crown Copyright

So, I was doing some uploads for British Rail logos and I noticed someone in a talk page make a remark that Crown Copyright expires 50 years from publication. So would this mean that the British Rail logo is in fact out of copyright, due to it being published in 1965? (50 years from 1965 is 2015), and wouldn't need to be uploaded and flagged as a 'non-free logo'--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 19:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems right, but I'm having problems determining if the logo was created under a Crown Copyright or not. It's not clear how the BRBoard was handled as a part of the government or not. --Masem (t) 19:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
See c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:British Rail double arrow for info on this topic. Nthep (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
So, to confirm, the conclusion reached there was 'The British Rail 'Double Arrow' logo is not under copyright, because the Crown Copyright expired in 2015, 50 years after creation.', which means it can be treated as a {{PD-UKGov}}.--The Navigators (talk)-May British Rail Rest in Peace. 23:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Need help with an image

Moved misplaced question from talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi!

I intended to upload an image in "Upload File", for use in an article ( here at English Wikipedia), but got just more and more confused the more I read about the rules. The image in question is a photograph of Rohit Khandelwal, Indian actor and model who was nominated Mr. World in 2016. I had an image in mind, and found that same image in the Indonesian article on Mr. Khandelwal here: [id.wikipedia.org] I copied it, and now wonder whether its presence on that article automatically mean that it is free to use? And if so, under which category do I upload it? Will "This is a free work" do, given that the image is lifted from Wikipedia?

I am interpreting the following line that it should be okay to use it; You can use (free) images from Wikipedia on your own site, or anywhere you like. [en.wikipedia.org]


Thanks. Okama-San (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Okama-San:, unfortunately the image is not "free" (= freely licensed for all usages on-Wiki and off-Wiki). As far as I understand the Google translation for its license tag, the image is a non-free PR photo used on id-Wiki under a claim of fair use. However, the usage of such copyrighted promo photos for living people under a claim of fair use is not permitted on English Wikipedia. en-Wiki has a much stricter policy regarding non-free content - you'll find the detailed criteria for limited non-free usages on English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, but this particular image doesn't meet them. GermanJoe (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for the reply!:) What a pity that it was not usable, then, but at least I know now

Best regards - Okama-San (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this image in copyright?

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. [3] 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 [4], 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)

It has been pointed out that the Tampa Bay Rays updated their logo about a year ago and I have no idea how to update the current file (found here) to the updated one which can be found on their website at the bottom of this page. The updated logo on their website is a .jpg and the currently uploaded file is an .svg so I am hoping to find any guidance on how to update the file, or if there is somewhere I can request that it be updated because I don't have a clue where to start without worrying about violating some kind of policy. Tampabay721 (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC) 00:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tampabay721. The first thing you need to do is to download the file from the team's website onto your computer. Once you've done that, there are a couple of things you can do next: (1) update the existing file so that it shows the new logo or (2) upload a new file altogether and replace the existing infobox logo with it.
If you want to do (1), go to File:Tampa_Bay_Rays.svg, scroll down to the bottom and then click "Upload a new version of this file". Just follow the instructions and upload the new version of the logo from your computer to Wikipedia. The file name will not change, and the non-free use rationale and file copyright license should also be the same; so, you basically won't have to do anything else, and the old logo will automatically be replaced by the new logo in every article in which the file is being used. The drawback of this approach is the the older version will be overwritten, and eventually deleted per WP:F5; so, if you feel the old version should be saved for some reason, you should not do (1).
If you'd rather keep the two files separate, you need to do (2). Go Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and click "Click here to start the Upload Wizard". The Wizard is fairly self-explanatory, but just remember to choose file name which is different from the already existing one and also to select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." Once the process has been completed, you'll need to manually replace the old file with the new one in the articles in which the old file is currently be used. If you've got any further questions, feel free to ask. If doing it yourself still seems too complicated, you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Files for upload; but that however tends to be for unregistered accounts which can't upload files. -- 00:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Tampabay721 (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC) 01:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Newspaper copyright question

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)

WGTN-FM

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

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

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

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.
Examples:
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)