Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  Village Pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note
  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page
Commons discussion pages (index)

  • Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Propose to update CC license tags to comply with the new wordings in CC deeds[edit]

I'm proposing this matter here per the advice of ChrisiPK at AN.

As we all know, CC had updated all of their license deeds after the release of CC 4.0 licenses. It is to educate the licensees (and licensors too) about the legal terms by highlighting them more promptly. And, we can see some terms like "remix", "work", "file" are not perfectly conveying the copyright terms. So CC changed them to "adapt", "material" to satisfy all types of works, means and medium we are using.

There is also a warning about the third party rights (like publicity, privacy and moral rights) that may limit the reuse. Our current practice is to add specific tags on individual files, which is time consuming and not perfect as we can't check all files.


Marking your work with a CC license "Example: Image"
Choose a license
Best practices for attribution
Best Practices for Creative Commons attributions
Creative Commons Attribution For Photos

So I propose to update the layout templates:

Current tag (CC BY lacks the ShareAlike clause):

w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
Attribution: Real name (
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
  • share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Option 6 Proposed tag without a "title" (CC BY lacks the ShareAlike clause):

Cc primary srr.gif
By large.png Sa large.png
This media by Real name ( is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
You are free to:
  • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Restarting the discussion[edit]

I noticed that @Jkadavoor: marked this for archiving, but I'd rather we tried to kickstart the discussion again, because these changes are (potentially) important: they impact how we present information about reuse to millions of people, on millions of pieces of content. In particular, they impact how we present information to unskilled reusers - the people who we'd really like to (1) use more of our content and (2) comply more with our license. That's too important to let this discussion go away. So maybe the right question is: does anyone *object* to @Multichill:, WMF, and others creating a more fleshed-out mockup based on @MGalloway (WMF): 's mockups above? —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Pinging all early participants to check any disagreement on using the new wordings ("Option 3/ 6") with the new layout by MGalloway_(WMF). @ChrisiPK, Saffron Blaze, FDMS4:, @El Grafo, , Dereckson:, @Jarekt, Gazebo, Kaldari:, @Stefan4, Colin, Graphium:... Jee 07:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks Luis Villa (WMF); and no oppose from my side. :) Jee 16:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No objections from me, too. I fully agree that it's very important that "unskilled reusers" will be enabled to comply with our license(s) as intuitively as possible. People just don't read lengthy terms; you can tell them a thousand times to read the actual license, they won't... so the big challenge is to create a summary that is on the one hand very compact, but on the other hand precise enough to make license-compliant reuse more likely. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No objections, just one Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Is the "must provide a link to the license" a new thing of the CC-4.0 or has that always been there? If it's new, we may need different wordings for different versions? --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @El Grafo: It is a requirement from version 1.0 onward. Jee 09:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The proposed licence templates do not link to the licence itself but to CC's simplified explanation of the licence. Is this compliant with the licence. Instead of linking to the licence, you can satisfy the requirement by including a copy of the licence, but maybe the template shouldn't mention that as the template otherwise risks being too long. Several of the suggestions already seem to be too long. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
      • @Stefan4: Option 6 links to legalcode; so I'm striking off Option 3. The new layout has a collapsible "read more" feature; so we can expand the text if required. Do you have any additions to the proposed text? Jee 16:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC) We already provided several links to CC FAQs to explain the brief wording in detail. For example, CreativeCommonsWiki:License_Versions#Detailed_attribution_comparison_chart well explains every attribution parameter in detail. Jee 16:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it is OK to link to the summary rather than the legalcode; you're right that a literal reading of the license probably requires pointing to the legal code, but I've never seen that done in the wild, even by CC themselves. (See, for example, the suggested links in this attribution guide from CC Australia.)—Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Luis Villa (WMF): It may be legally OK to link to the summary; but there is a difference in our perspective. In all other sites (like Flickr), they give a simple notice stating "this media is CC XX license and linking to the deed. But in our case, we are not mentioning any think near the usage; just hyper-linking to the "file page" where we state the license and terms of use. It will add one more layer of complexity, keeping the actual license one more step away. That's why we prefer to provide a summary of the license there (in the file page). Since this summary (license tag) is almost exact duplicate of the CC deed, linking it again to the deed (which again linking to the license code) is very redundant and useless (as Colin stated earlier). Jee 14:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. All of my work is PD, but I do have to use another license when that is what I am updating, so my preference is to make it shorter than the current version, not longer. A link can be used for details, but taking up more real estate on every image page is not a good idea. Delphi234 (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think May's mockups (above) can be very small/slim. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe I should have asked Jee to hide the first round of options :) A reminder that May posted some proposals, which I think reflect some thinking on how to do this in a way that is both cleaner and more informative. Copied them in-line here for reference. —Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
"I have some initial thoughts and mock-ups to illustrate. Thanks for being so patient! Wikimania prep has been taking up pretty much all my time. Here
is an attempt to connect the usage and terms more than we previously did, by stating in one place and sentence "Under this license terms*, you are free to…:" and then a list of things you're free to do and what you must do after, which is to attribute and sharealike. But I began by questioning why we care about CC license banner and the purpose of the license. Because people tend to be unaware of their boundaries, a CC license is there to protect the work of the creator and the fair usage of the user of the work. Since CC license permits users to do a lot of things (which they already have no problems with) so long as they are in compliant with license. I thought it was more important for users to know know what they must do if they choose to use the work, because without following terms, they risk getting in trouble. Here
, I made the entire banner look like a single important message with a very clear hierarchy of info, as if saying: Attribute and Sharealike and you'll be fine. Same thing here
, just with different language that's more actionable, "You are free to share & adapt…as long as you…Give attribution, Share Again." I've moved around some sentences here and there but don't claim to for them to be more appropriate for legal purposes, but is what I think could be more understandable. A more condensed version could look like this
. On a side note, I really like how The Noun Project has done to educate icon downloaders to properly attribute the author. When you click on the Download button, you are required to agree to attribute the author (3.0). Once downloaded, you are directed to a page where you get pretty specific instructions on where to attribute the author depending on popular medium usages. We should do something similar!MGalloway (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)"
  • @MGalloway (WMF), LuisV (WMF): Do you need any further comments on this topic? Otherwise we can ask a crat to close it. I see no opposes now, and this discussion is running for a long-while. :) Jee 16:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can close this. Do we have anyone to implement the outcome of this RfC? --Dschwen (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

About a picture from 1919[edit]

See [4] - this picture is actually from 1919 (see Urbain_Ledoux#The_Stepping_Stone) and here it is published in trimmed form in 1919 - [5]. Can I use the untrimmed version in wikipedia? --Smkolins (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

You have proof that it was published in 1919 and not in 1930 as the Getty description says. This is in the public domain because it was published before 1923. What I would do is to provide a link to the page as you did here and cite the book on the template. HTH, We hope (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't have access to the book you refer to, and Google Books only has a table of contents. If the picture indeed was published in 1919, then you can upload it to Commons using the copyright tag {{PD-1923}}. If possible, try to obtain a copy without Getty's watermark. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
What I don't understand is why I can see the full book with photo on the linked page and you can't. Can say that yes, the book is from 1919. We hope (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
A lot of Google Books content is not available to European users, presumably for various legal reasons. They may not have vetted European copyright status, and a lot of their actions depend on the U.S. fair use exception, which doesn't exist in Europe, at least not universally and not to the same degree (and even the U.S. usage has been argued; court cases are still going on I think). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
From what I have undestood, Google doesn't bother checking for death years but simplifies things by just assuming that all books made before a certain year satisfy {{PD-old-70}} and that everything else is copyrighted. If the death year is unknown, {{PD-old-70}} requires a much earlier cut-off year than {{PD-1923}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yet we are allowed full view of magazines such as Life, which rarely missed a renewal and full access to Billboard, even though the magazines are still protected. Not sure why books are treated one way and apparently magazines another. We hope (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Also note that w:Google News Archive is fully accessible in Europe, including some very recent newspapers. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Magazines are treated another way because you can do anything if you have permission of the copyright holder, which I assume they do for Life and Billboard.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me started on that. :) In the US, it used to be a great tool because you could search until you either found what you wanted or ran out of patience. After they stopped adding to it, they started limiting the number of hits, newspapers began disappearing, never to be seen again and so on-this is when you have to use it in the US. We hope (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

picture on German Wikipedia de:Max Bernhard Weinstein[edit]

KylieTastic suggested I seek enlightenment here as the picture on German Wikipedia de:Max Bernhard Weinstein. The German version is claimed there to have been taken in 1910, so ought not be copyrighted anywhere, right? If this is so, can it be brought here to be used in English Wikipedia en:Max Bernhard Weinstein. User:DeistCosmos 21:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: The original source is - Copyright law confuses me, so I wasn't sure what usage was possible to help DeistCosmos when they asked[6]. The US law appears to need the image to be first published in the US over 100 years ago (and possible that the author is dead?), however how can we know if the image was ever published in the US? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • On their "Impressum" they claim a copyright on everything they've published, unless there's an explicit statement about rights by 3rd parties (not applicable for this photo.) Especially they say that any use not covered by copyright law requires a written permission. The latter would be useless for commons, because commons only hosts free media. But if the image is old enough to be anyway free under German copyright law you should be able to upload it here, maybe {{PD-anon-1923}} does the trick in this case. If the photographer died in 1970 (plausible example for age 20 in 1910), you actually shouldn't upload it here now. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
In the United States, the copyright has expired if the picture was published before 1923. You should keep in mind that some things, in particular family photographs and private letters, tend to remain unpublished for a very long time. If the picture wasn't published at all before 2003, then the copyright expires 120 years after creation, provided that it indeed was taken by an anonymous photographer.
In Germany, the copyright term normally expires 70 years after the death of the photographer, but if the photographer died more than 70 years before the first publication, the copyright term is extended to 25 years from publication. If, as claimed on German Wikipedia, the photographer indeed is anonymous, the term is reduced to 70 years from publication. If the photograph wasn't published within 70 years from creation, the term is further reduced to 25 years from publication. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Reason enough, I'd gather -- for I don't see how this could be a family heirloom type photo and yet Humboldt claiming copyright ownership. Most surely this was taken by behest of the institution during Prof. Weinstein's employ there, and by a photographer-for-hire whose identity was unimportant to the enterprise and so forgotten immediately thereafter. And surely this was published by posting in some public place where prospective pupils might view the visage of their potential professor. 23:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of PD-textlogo rules[edit]

File:Toyota logo.png
like this one
I have seen quite a few questionable images tagged as a only text and simple shapes logo therefore ineligible for copyright. But this image clearly is more than "simple geometric shapes and letters". So I am asking for some more concrete details about where it can be used, and maybe adding them to the template page. Thanks EoRdE6 (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
We have an existing page at Commons:Threshold of originality that covers these rules by country of origin. —RP88 (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
So your opinion on the Toyota logo to the right is? EoRdE6 (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion the stylized-"T" Toyota logo is below the threshold of originality in the U.S. —RP88 (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@EoRdE6:, in my point of view, the threshold of originality in commons is COMPLETELY governed by administrators. Therefore the criteria of TOO only reflect their understanding, without concerns of cases in different regions and culture background. I'm not optimistic about this case unless Wikimedia Foundation met true law suits. - Siyuwj (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Does not match my observations so far, users are free to add {{vk}} {{tl|PD-textlogo}} on a deletion request, and the closing admin (or user for keep) is free to use "no consensus to delete" in the summary. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


The file Analog_TV_EMI.jpg was uploaded by Shaddack who attempted to license it under public domain, and has tagged it as such. However, the author states in the description that it is a screenshot of Superman Returns, which can only be licensed under fair use at best, under which I assume it should be deleted; or that it is to be considered de minimis infringement (especially since it is almost unrecognizable). There is also the "Prima" bug in the upper left hand corner which can be considered a logo, but probably does not exceed threshold of originality. The purpose of the screenshot is not to depict the copyrighted content, and the low quality itself is not a reason for deletion--rather, the quality issue the purpose of the screenshot. Aside from the bad license, does the inclusion of copyrighted material jeopardize this file's presence on Commons? --ChrstphrChvz (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the main goal here is to demonstrate the phenomenon of electromagnetic interference and the quality of the background image is from low to unrecognizable, this background image can be considered de minimis, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright tag question[edit]

Hello, The following link (with information about an image) says that the image does not have the appropriate copyright tag. Since it is in the public domain, would I use {{Copyrighted free use}} for the appropriate copyright tag?

Superpsychotic21 (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Superpsychotic21

Hi Superpsychotic21,
if it's in the public domain, then it's not copyrighted, so the proposed tag would be wrong. Anyway, as the depicted packaging contains probably copyrighted artwork, the public-domain claim is likely wrong. Let's wait for the outcome of the ongoing DR discussion. --Túrelio (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The existing tag is fine. However, there might be derivative works issues, since you are not the author of the artwork on the packaging. Photos like that can be a close call as to whether that would be a derivative work or if the use is incidental. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help/feedback. :)

Superpsychotic21 (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Superpsychotic21

Machine-readable data on Open Government License[edit]

I have machine readable data to {{OGL}}. Could someone please review the correctness of this? Thanks!

(By the way, it appears there are already 3 versions of OGL, but our template has a generic name, although it points to v1 license. We might want to look into this.

Jean-Fred (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Exif contradicts flickr license[edit]

I'd like to clarify the following case: Consider File:Kinderfest in Liesing (4983089086).jpg. According to flickr this is CC-by-sa/2.0. Fine for us. But according to Exif data (Urheberrechte: Veröffentlichung honorarfrei bei Namensennung ausschliesslich für nicht-kommerzielle Nutzung.; meaning something like by-sa-nc) which is not a compatible free license. Is this ok? Or is this Flickr-Washing? As the photographer is an employee of the party uploading his images to flickr, or he at least depends on the party for additional jobs, I feel, he will not complain.

So can it be kept? Or has it to be deleted due to copyvio?

There is a lot of similar images all from the same source (by various photographers and with various licenses) and of little to no encyclopedic value, so it would not cause a gap in our collection of images to delete most of them. There is another example File:Bundeskanzler_Werner_Faymann_im_Schloss_Hof_(9053621446).jpg, stating in the exif data Verwendung bei Namensnennung ausschließlich fuer redaktionelle Nutzung. - Usage only for editorial purposes. But first I want an opinion on this image. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

author=Werner Faymann makes no sense, that could be fixed with the EXIF data. Changing licenses (is this a configured camera default?) to something less restrictive is okay. IANAL: Be..anyone (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Pinging the uploader. Jee 02:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
With this contradicting data I'd actually request a usage permission from the Flickr uploader. Somebody with a Flickr account send them a mail/notification? --Denniss (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
But if the author name mentioned in EXIF is different, what is the use in contacting Werner Faymann? We can't trust such Flickr accounts. Jee 04:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The photographer, according to exif, is Johannes Zinner. ( I can contact him to get clarification. But as there is an economic dependency from the social democratic party (SPÖ) that uploaded the images he shot, the answer might not be honest. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, he is the only one who can provide a legally binding answer. --Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sent mail to Johannes Zinner. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggest new copyright template: PD-nature[edit]

The US does not recognize copyright in works created by nature (see pg. 8 in this document: "The office will not register works created by nature, animals, or plants"). However, there is no copyright tag on Commons for uploaded works that were created by nature. When uploading an audio recording of underwater noises, the most fitting copyright tag I could find is PD-because. However, this is a copyright issue that is probably common enough to merit its own template. AHeneen (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

While I suppose you could create a specialized tag akin to {{PD-animal}} for nature sounds, I think it is perfectly acceptable to use {{PD-ineligible}} for media such as your example that are in the public domain for lack of original human authorship. —RP88 (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There are two different copyrights to consider when uploading a sound file: The performers copyrights and the copyright for the recording. The text you refere to talks about the performer. A sound recording is of course copyrighted. --Martin H. (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if I wasn't clear, I agree that it isn't appropriate to use {{PD-ineligible}} for sound recordings where there is an original human contribution with respect to capturing and processing the sounds to make the final recording. The cases where it would apply would be recordings of nature sounds captured by devices like traffic cameras. —RP88 (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

copyrights of a photo from an old newspaper[edit]

I have downloaded to the Commons a photo I scanned from Dagens Nyheter, 16 May 1945: File:Reginald Oliver Gilling Urch.jpg. I was asked about the copyrights of the photo, however I have no single idea how to answer. As a result I was given seven days to solve the problem, otherwise the photo will be deleted. Can anybody help? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavLan762 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 18 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Under most circumstances works are protected for 70 years from the death of the author, so recent works like that photo are unlikely to be public domain. However, the newspaper Dagens Nyheter is a Swedish newspaper. You can refer to the summary of Swedish copyright at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Sweden. Do you have access to this issue of the newspaper to check to see if they identify the photographer or other source for this photo to confirm that File:Reginald Oliver Gilling Urch.jpg is of Swedish origin? Sweden had an interesting distinction between photographic works and photographic pictures (See sv:Upphovsrätt_i_Sverige#Fotografier). It is possible that that this press photo meets the requirements of a photographic picture (fotografiska bilder). If it does, then as a Swedish photographic picture published before 1994 and created before January 1, 1969 it is in the public domain, and you can add the {{PD-Sweden-photo}} copyright tag to the licensing section of File:Reginald Oliver Gilling Urch.jpg. —RP88 (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a digital version of the obituary made from a microfilm of Dagens Nyheter. In the newspaper there is no name of the photographer, not even the name of the one who wrote the obituary. (A translation of the obituary, done by Larsmunk, as well as the photo, appear at the page devoted to Reginald Urch.) The photo is no doubt of Swedish origin. In 1939, when the Second World War broke, the man, a correspondent of The Times, was stationed in Warsaw and from there he escaped to Stockholm. Except for several months when he was sent by his newspaper to Finland to report about the Finnish Winter War, he stayed during the whole war in Stockholm, writing from there about the various stages of the fightings. He died in 1945 soon after the war was over. The press photo obviously was taken at that time, as it reflects his age, so there could be little doubt that it meets the requirements of a photographic picture (fotografiska bilder) and is in the public domain. Dear RP88, I’m quite a beginner in these matters and the time is short. How about if you help by inserting this {{PD-Sweden-photo}} in the right place? Thanks. DavLan762 (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about a tune[edit]


I am quit new at Wikimedia, and I have some questions, which may be silly, but I will really appreciate some help. (I am not even sure, that this is the right place to ask, but now I will try).

My interest is about a tune: Le chant des partisans by Anna Marly, and I have searched the Internet for many hours to try to find the copyright owners of the melody, until I finally discovered, that the tune was uploaded to Wikimedia, and registered under Public Domain by a Hungarian user called OsvátA.

I an earlier version of the upload of the song, OsvátA wrote: "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses: ... GNU Free Documentation License ..."

My questions are not intended to be offensive, and I must emphasize, that I have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to mistrust OsvátA, but still:

- How can I know, whether this Free License - statement actually is authentic?

- Does "I, the copyright holder" mean that OsvátA is the copyright owner of the music?

- I want to use Anna Marlys music to Le chant des partisans with a Danish text, but of cause only if it is legal. Would you experienced Wikimedia-uses recommend me to investigate the copyright-issue further (how??) before doing so, or can I just trust, that some "authority" at Wikimedia has granted, that the tune is free to use?

Kindly Søren Hammer Jacobsen

Note: This is presumably in reference to File:Anna_Marly_song_-_sample.ogg. Revent (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Søren hammer jacobsen: Own work was completely incorrect, and neither is the current tag on the file. From what I have found from a quick search (you might know more than I do about the actual circumstances, this is based on information from a few Wikipedia articles) this was written by her sometime prior to 1942, and sung by her on the BBC. This is (presumably) a recording of the BBC broadcast. Under UK copyright law [7] a 'sound recording or broadcast' is copyrighted for 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first released, which would mean (if this attribution is correct) that this recording entered the public domain in 1992. As far as the actual song itself, the UK protects 'musical works' for 70 years after the death of the author. Since Anna Marley died in 2006, the actual song itself is going to be under copyright for a very long time. I'm not going to mess with the tagging on the actual file right now.. hopefully someone who speaks Russian can verify this attribution from the source and fix it. Revent (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
On the source (, some recordings are marked as "Le chant des partisans (1958)", but I couldn't find anything which could be called "attribution" or any license state on them. is old free hosting with very poor copyright moderation, that's why it is in the spamlist. Ignatus (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

License on some glyphs[edit]

I have uploaded some glyphs (see Special:Contributions/Ignatus or the wide table in w:ru:О (кириллица)) which were generated from Old Standard TT font (most were just vectorized, Cyrillic letter double O.svg and Cyrillic letter crossed O.svg were then modified from another glyphs). This font, based on "Modern" garnitures of the 19th century, uses the SIL Open Font License. Was I right to upload this all here, and how to specify the license? Ignatus (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ignatus: Use {{Open Font}}. It's an OSI-approved license. Revent (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
To be a little more specific, after looking at the actual license... these are not 'font software', but 'documents' that illustrate modified versions of glyphs from the font. What restrictions are in the Open Font License only apply to actual font software, you are allowed to use the glyphs themselves freely. Revent (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)