Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
< Commons:Village pump(Redirected from Commons:CQ)
Jump to: navigation, search
  Welcome   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.

Deep dream images[edit]

Southwark market pies.JPGSouthwark market pies (trippy).jpeg

These are both my photograph taken at Southwark Market, but the second one has been processed through Google's Deep Dream. Any thoughts on whether this is a copyright problem? Apologies in advance to lovers of meat pies. -- (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Was it using the code at github? Because that's explicitly open source, so the only question is license. I don't think it produces a copyright problem, but it's certainly clearer if it's the product of the open source code.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's the Trippy filter at In general... automated processing of something will not create any new copyrights, since it needs to be human expression to be copyrightable. However, when the processing involves inserting portions of other copyrightable works... that gets a lot cloudier. I don't see anything on the site which describes the source images for that filter and what the copyright is. The images provided with the deepdream source are CC-BY-SA-3.0 but that is clearly using something else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI the image was generated using, so open source. Even if the images fueling the transformation routine were non free, due to the focus of the image still being the original photo, I'm thinking that there is a strong de minimis case. -- (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The resulting image is not a derivative work of the source code, so I don't think the license of the program itself makes much difference. The images in the Deep Dream database are another matter... in reading about it, the original application might have been to see if the computer program could identify dog breeds, so apparently it has a bit of a "dog bias" right now. The licensing of all that stuff is anyone's guess. It really should be derivative works technically, though de minimis or inherent fair use might cover things. It's basically impossible to track back to the original images used unless you get randomly lucky, so there's really no way to get a license (unless Google was very careful about licensing the photos which went into the database, which I'm guessing they weren't, and there's no real way to attribute either). Perhaps anyone who allowed photos to be used there basically had to permit usages in eventual images like this, so maybe there is an implied license. I do see a blogger thinks that in the UK the person who runs the photo through the engine (picking the filter) would actually get a copyright (in addition to the copyright on the original photo) but I doubt that would apply in too many countries. That is due to the UK's definition of "original". Overall... kind of a new situation that doesn't fit too well in copyright law, but it may be too extreme to disallow them on those grounds, as I'm not sure what else anyone could do. If Google claims copyright on all the images in the database and disallows commercial licenses on the derivatives, that would probably cause me to vote the other way, but short of that not sure we should disallow them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Why not ask Google legal through OTRS explaining free licencing etc? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 03:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

File:Lux romancing.jpg[edit]

Licensing claims the image is the public domain, but it looks like it is an advertisement that was taken from some kind of printed publication and the only source information provided is "Lux". The two actress featured in the ad are en:Audrey Hepburn and en:Barbara Rush were born after 1923 and according to the en:Lux (soap)#1960s: Romancing the brand this was an ad campaign from the 1960s so I am not sure how it qualifies as public domain.

For reference, the same licensing is also used for File:Lux logo.jpg, File:Lux youthful.jpg, File:Lux stars2.jpg, File:Lux buildingsoap.jpg, File:Early beginnings.jpg, and File:Printads 20s.jpg. No specific source information or specific publication date, etc. is provided for any of the aforementioned images so it's possible that all or at least some of them may not qualify as public domain, isn't it? They were all uploaded by Dominictang and the same licensing used for them all perhaps without much consideration being given as to whether it was correct to do so. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Advertising had an interesting requirement in the U.S. -- before 1989, print advertisements in magazines and newspapers etc. had to have their own copyright notice -- the overall copyright notice on the magazine or newspaper did not cover the ads, so if notice was missing, they were most likely {{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}. One of them says printed in Toronto... but if that was early 20s, then 50 years from publication passed before the URAA date, so it's probably OK as well. If other ads were published in other countries before the U.S., it might be different, but I'm guessing those are all OK. It would be good to have sources (so we could date them better) and to put more accurate licenses on them, and the text is a bit fuzzy on a couple, but I think the ads are OK. I have serious doubts about File:Lux logo.jpg -- the surface of the letters themselves probably holds a copyright, even though just the outlines would be PD-textlogo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed response Clindberg. Just for the sake of argument, suppose the copyright notice was originally provided, but was left off when the image was scanned. Is something like this possible? Would the copyright have been placed somewhere within the advertisement itself so that its removal could not occur without being noticed? These images had to come from somewhere. It's possible they were scanned by the the uploader, but its also just as possible they came from another website. Can we just assume a copyright notice was never provided and thus the images are PD by default? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
They would have to appear on the ad itself somewhere, yes. On the edges would be fine but not on other pages, etc. If the scans might have cropped it out (or photoshopped it out), that could be an issue. It's quite likely these were taken off the internet somewhere, but often enough evidence (for lack of notice anyways) is inherent in the uploaded image such that source is not absolutely required (though it's always helpful). If you think an ad is cropped too much to be able to tell, then that can be grounds for nomination for deletion. It was very rare for ads to have a notice though, especially earlier ones. Probably a judgment call as to whether enough of the ad is shown, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the further clarification Cindberg. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible photo of author Allen Klein[edit]

Could a high-resolution version of this photo, which shows author Allen Klein at a public event, be uploaded if the photo itself were freely licensed? Or would there be issues with the multicolored clothing design that appears in the photo (the clothing design is not intended to be the main subject of the photo but was hard to avoid including)? --Gazebo (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I do see anything remarkable about his clothes. If we were not allowed to upload people wearing such clothes, the only people present on the Commons would be people without clothes. Ruslik (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Is a valid source for public domain files?[edit]

The website is a collection of public domain files. Or, at least, it claims to be.

It' contents are not user-provided. The whole collection is a one man's work.

While I have no reason to doubt the good intentions of the site's maintainer, I do have a problem with the fact that he never cites where he got the images from, nor what makes each image public domain. He just claims they are all public domain images.

We have a lot of images from right now. Can we really use photos like this or this without proper copyright information? --Damiens.rf 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The Roberto Clemente one... I wonder if we had an image which has since been deleted -- this page credits Commons with an image which could be an original source of that one. This is a fuller version. It's possible we had an erroneous version and it made its way to that site, then came back in a different form. So... not sure that site is real evidence, though most of them probably are, but (like us) mistakes are probably often made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jim Morrison 1968.jpg[edit]

We need an admin who has fairly good understanding of U.S. copyright law to close the (rather contentious and complicated) discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jim Morrison 1968.jpg. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO's document published in Europe in 1972[edit]

Hi everyone, I would like to receive some help about the laws of copyright that apply to this document published by UNESCO in Europe in 1972. I know that many documents published in the United States before 1987 are in the public domain, because the organization do not seek copyright. But I'm not sure if that also applies to documents published in Europe before 1987.

For my specific purpose here in Commons I'm only interested in the first page of the document, not all document. But maybe someone else is interested in other pages. Thanks in advance --Tecsie(Talk) 21:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Official texts (edicts of the government) including international treaties (like this document) are not protected by copyright either in USA or Europe. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

File:American Fluid Company crate side.jpg[edit]

Is the logo in this photo too simple to be subject to copyright or does COM:PACKAGING apply? No date is provided so it's hard to determine if the logo is too old to still be subject to copyright. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd call it {{PD-ineligible}} plus {{Trademark}} --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 20:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply Hedwig in Washington. Changing the licensing from "own work" to "PD-ineligible"/"trademark" is all that is needed and that COM:PACAKGING is not a concern? - Marchjuly (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that should do it. If someone thinks otherwise, they can always start a deletion request. Cheers, --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


Logo is perhaps simple enough to not be subject to copyright, but I'm pretty sure this .jpg cannot be claimed as own work and needs some source information for verification purposes. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that the logo is of US origin, then it seems likely that it can be treated as a case of {{PD-textlogo}} + {{Trademark}}. For a source, a search indicates that the image can be found on this TVWeek page and this FindSpark page, among other possible locations. (As a side note, given the nature of the logo, there might be something to be said for converting the image to PNG format, uploading it as PNG, and then tagging the JPEG version with {{SupersededPNG}}.) --Gazebo (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Gazebo. Can anyone convert the jpeg version license from "own work" to "PD-text logo" or does it have to be done by the uploader? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
From what one understands, anyone can change the info for the file. I have changed the source and licensing info accordingly, in addition to some minor improvements. --Gazebo (talk) 03:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Gazebo. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Query re collage image[edit]

Is something like this valid? I'm not so sure - appears that all the images could be individually copyrighted even if the collage is user-created. Mabalu (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Gone ahead and nominated all user's uploads for deletion, as they appear to be commercial images or made using copyrighted images and there is little convincing evidence that the user was the author of the images. Mabalu (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


The licensing claims that this image is too simple to meet the threshold of originality, but I'm not so sure about the design of the "Q". It seems to be a little more than a simple geometric shape, plain text or just a matter of font style. Image seems more "non-free" than "free" in my opinion. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about Dutch law, but in the US, it's just a fancy font. See the W/crown on File:Best Western logo.svg that the Copyright Office declined to register for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Question about photographs of objects from museum collection[edit]

I am a curator at the Dutch National Liberation Museum 1944-1945 and in the months to come, I wish to provide Wikimedia with photographs of non-artistic historical objects from the 1930's to 1950's. I've added one example to start: File:German Stamps, 1 Million Mark and 2 Million Mark.JPG (I'm still working on the best possible set up, lighting, resolution, etc.) These will be my own photographs, so photographers copyright won't be an issue. However, how do I indicate that I also have permission from the museum to photograph these items? Of course a written document from our director is something I can manage, but I don't see a place to upload one and I would prefer not to have to make a new one for each item. Can someone tell me what should be in the permission notice to cover all my photographs, and where I should put this proof of permission? --NationalLiberationMuseum19441945 (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Permission should go to COM:OTRS, but in this case, I am not sure it is needed. At least in case of 2D items, like your file above, we don't give a copyright to the photographer. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. But you need to add more information: the date should be the date of the items, and the creator should be the creator of the items (i.e. in this case, the German State). I think a scan of these stamps would be better. See File:DR-D 1923 98 Dienstmarke.jpg for a good example. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) NationalLiberationMuseum19441945, thanks for asking before uploading. You might want to read COM:LIC look through COM:CT. I would also suggest alerting volunteers at nl:Wikipedia:GLAM: Dutch Wikipedia has a very strong group working with GLAM institutions and they might be able to assist you with tools and advice. I would also look at some other uploads from cultural institutions, just to get a feel for usual format. But about your question: for museum images we mostly worry about the copyrights of the original objects. Copyrights of photographers mostly are only important in case of 3D works, like sculptures, and rely on {{PD-Art}} in case of 2D artworks, like paintings, although if we have them for 2D works we are happy to see them too. We do not need permission from the museum, however we often acknowledge partnerships with museum through templates like Template:Museum Catharijneconvent, which can also have additional OTRS template which links to a offline database of official permission documents from copyright holders, if the photographs were made by the museum photographers. So the main problem would be to determine if the "non-artistic historical objects from the 1930's to 1950's" might be copyrighted or not. Many are not copyrighted but I would also suggest reading Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Netherlands and Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter. Also please consider using {{Artwork}} and provide as much possible links to museum online inventories if available. --Jarekt (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding file[edit]

The file I am trying to upload comes directly off of the website I am editing.

--Dmconner1 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your question? Can you provide a link to the website you are editing? — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What CC license does YouTube apply?[edit]

YouTube allows people to tag videos with CC-By licenses, as here.

Seemingly YouTube does not designate a version of Creative Commons licenses.

If a video has YouTube's default CC-By tagging, what is the correct template to apply to that video? Do we just use the most current international CC-By license which Creative Commons is offering? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The license link goes to a youtube page at , which in turn links to CC-BY-3.0. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This YouTube/Google support page links to CC-by 3.0 which they call the "standard Creative Commons license". So you should use {{CC-by-3.0}} at Commons and probably provide a link to the support page too. Also, as there is no personal authorship claim for the video, please be sure to credit the MacLean Center as the author. De728631 (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Resolved
Thanks, I see, this is the way to do it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Audio published in UK in 1937[edit]

This audio was first published in 1937 in the UK by the BBC. It is public domain in the UK, but perhaps not in the US. The deciding factor is whether or not it was still under copyright in the UK in 1996 and thus had it's US copyright restored by the URAA. Does anyone know what the UK's copyright term for audio was in 1996? The work would have been 58 years old and Virginia Woolf (the author) would have been dead for 55 years. I'm just trying to decide whether the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} template should be added. Kaldari (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved
After doing some more research it looks like the copyright term for audio recordings in the UK in 1996 was 50 years after publication (it is now 70), so it would have been public domain on the URAA restoration day and thus did not have it's copyright restored in the US. Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not in the public domain in the US. All audio recordings are copyright under state law until 2067, whether or not they have federal copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems that this applies to US works, but I have some doubt it applies to foreign works as well? Regards, Yann (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It's tangled and horrible and messy. The URAA explicitly restored pre-1972 sound recordings, so if they were restored but later lost U.S. copyright, that probably eliminated the common-law protection (which will otherwise last until 2067). But if they were out of copyright in the source country at that point, it's harder to say. Did the URAA terminate the common-law protection, or since it didn't apply to those works, maybe those works continued under common law protection. The Naxos case was explicitly about 1930s foreign recordings, and was about actions that occurred after the URAA, and they ruled that the common-law copyright protection still applied. So that would be the most direct indication -- such sound recordings are still under common-law copyright in the U.S. Sucks for us, but that appears to be the law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not common law in most states, is it? In Nevada, the law says:
NRS 205.217 Unlawful reproduction or sale of sound recordings.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, it is unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation or association knowingly to:
(a) Transfer or cause to be transferred any sounds recorded on a phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film or other article on which sounds are recorded onto any other phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film or article; or
(b) Sell, distribute, circulate, offer for sale, distribution or circulation, possess for the purpose of sale, distribution or circulation, or cause to be sold, distributed, circulated, offered for sale, distribution or circulation, or possessed for sale, distribution or circulation, any article or device on which sounds have been transferred without the consent of the person who owns the master phonograph record, master disc, master tape or other device or article from which the sounds are derived.
2. It is unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation or association to sell, distribute, circulate, offer for sale, distribution or circulation or possess for the purposes of sale, distribution or circulation, any phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film or other article on which sounds have been transferred unless the phonograph record, disc, wire, tape, film or other article bears the actual name and address of the transferor of the sounds in a prominent place on its outside face or package.
3. This section does not apply to any person who transfers or causes to be transferred any sounds intended for or in connection with radio or television broadcast transmission or related uses, for archival purposes or solely for the personal use of the person transferring or causing the transfer and without any compensation being derived by the person from the transfer.
4. A person who violates the provisions of this section shall be punished:
(a) For the first offense, for a category D felony as provided in NRS 193.130.
(b) For a subsequent offense, for a category C felony as provided in NRS 193.130.
(2067 comes from Federal law which explicitly preempts state laws at that point.) I don't see why it wouldn't apply to foreign audio recordings just like US or Nevada ones. Other state laws may be worded differently, but I've looked up a few states and always found written law to this effect.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
From what one understands, if a recording was fixed before Feb 15, 1972 and the recording was not subject to US federal copyright via the URAA and the recording does not incorporate any underlying copyrighted material (such as a copyrighted song), then the current policy is to accept the recording on Commons but to include a {{PD-US-record}} tag which talks about the possibility of states applying common law copyright. At the same time, because the {{PD-US-record}} tag is for recordings where federal copyright does not apply, it would seem that the tag should not be used for recordings for which federal copyright was applied via the URAA even if the recording was fixed before Feb 15, 1972. For the "On Craftsmanship" recording, assuming that there is no underlying copyrighted material, then it would seem that the {{PD-US-record}} tag would be applicable. --Gazebo (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
PD-US-record is basically wrong... common law protection is essentially everywhere, not just New York. Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-US-record is sort of still an open question, and the tag is at odds with WMF guidance. It would only apply if the common-law copyright was lost somehow, perhaps if you could show en:abandonment. This might be the sort of work where common-law copyright is less clear, though. For commercial music recordings we shouldn't be using it, but this is a little different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Common law is that which is based off of court rulings, and that sort of thing -- it's not explicitly written in laws passed by a legislature (which is statutory law, though those can create additional rights). Many states have statutory piracy laws, but common-law copyright can still exist without them. It's more a result of what feels "right" rather than defined lines, which makes it hard to guess what the result would be. And yes, it can differ by state. That said... the rulings have generally been over music recordings, where there is a definite commercial interest involved. It is definitely possible that common law copyright could "expire" if it had been given up somehow, or disused, or it would never really be possible to make money from it, or something like that. The above sounds like a recording of an interview... if there was a market for that sort of thing, and the BBC had been selling copies, I wouldn't touch it. Otherwise, it may be more of a common sense thing. If the BBC is not complaining about it, then it might be OK. There is very little black and white about it... owners do not need to take action to protect statutory copyright, but if they knowingly allow common law use, that might be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Taxidermy / stuffed animals[edit]

I'm a bit at a loss regarding the question of possible copyright protection for stuffed animals resp. taxidermy. There's currently an open DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:ENTREe museum.JPG. Even if originally protected, the mounted animal in question may be out of copyright by now (as it's apparently an exhibit from 1878), but I would be interested in more information regarding the general question. My first, spontaneous assumption in that discussion was that such a stuffed animal isn't protected by copyright - after all, the purpose is to show the animal in its natural appearance, and that appearence in itself is not a human work of creativity. However, Taivo then cited various deletion requests where a copyright protection for taxidermy was claimed - yet, in these DRs it looks more like personal opinions, no court decisions or law commentaries were quoted.

Researching a bit more, I have found an essay by Elcobbola where indeed some (US) court cases are quoted. However, both decisions rely on "artistic features introduced by the author". In one of the two decisions, a stuffed fish was denied protection, as it had no meaningful detail ... that is not commanded by the idea of a realistic fish. So, based on these two court decisions, it seems to me that (in the US) taxidermy is only copyrightable if the animal is prepared in a particularly "artistic" way; on the other hand, if it's an animal that just looks as we would expect that animal to look (such as the fish in Hart Scr v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Company Inc), then it's not protected. Now, what for File:ENTREe museum.JPG? Eulalie the elephant certainly looks a bit strangely glossy, but as it's an old specimen, this may have to do with the techniques of the time and ageing. Probably some kind of protective varnish was applied. Apart from that, it just looks like a regular young elephant to me. So, is it protected by copyright or not? Does it have "meaningful detail" that is not commanded by the idea of a realistic elephant? And to complicate matters, is it protected by copyright in France? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Techcrunch vs Getty Images[edit]

Kathryn Minshew.jpg

Who is the copyright owner of this file? In the EXIF-date it says Getty Images for TechCrunch and on the Flickr-description it says Brian Ach/Getty Images for TechCrunch, but on Commons it only says Techcrunch. Can Techcrunch license the file how they want, or is Getty Images (part-)owners of the copyright? If so, is the entire Flcikrfeed (with images from Getty) Flickrwashing? Do we need OTRS-permission from Getty to use the image, or is the Flickr-license from Techcrunch enough? Josve05a (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Stemoc seems to have passed a license review for CC-BY 1.0, when it is licensed as 2.0 on Flickr. Off-topic about this question, but just wanted to say that while at the same time pinging him to this discussion. Josve05a (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Getty Images act as a copyright agent rather than the copyright holder. If the photographer has released the image on a license suitable for Commons, then there seems no reason to ask Getty anything (... i.e. our "reasonable efforts" to check copyright can stop at checking the Flickrstream, which itself appears entirely legitimate based on contents, EXIF data, age and so forth). -- (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
nah, i passed it cc-by, svenbot changed it to cc-by 1.0 and regarding the image, Its allowed as Fae mentioned above, techcrunch is a major organization so its obvious that they need to hire professional photographers to take images for them and behalf of them and we shouldn't read into the Exif too much since most of those are hard coded into the camera these photographers use and only a handful acknowledge for whom they are taking the images for...--Stemoc 01:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

File:North Carolina Office.JPG[edit]

Image is claimed as "own work", but I believe it is the same as en:File:AM North Carolina Office; Wikipedia.JPG which was uploaded as non-free to Wikipedia and File:AM North Carolina Office; Wikipedia.PNG which was uploaded to Commons by the same uploader (Joey Kinyanjui). The one uploaded to Wikipedia was deleted per en:WP:F7 and the one uploaded to Commons was deleted as a copyright violation. In addition, the quality of the image does not seem to be that of a photograph taken by the uploader, but rather that of image downloaded from the Internet and then re-uploaded. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A Google image search shows that the image is being used on this webpage for an office leasing company. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Anonymous work[edit]

I recently run into Template:Anonymous work which covers Anonymous PD work created more than 50 years ago. The "template does not apply to works from countries that extended the Berne Convention or that did not sign it. In particular, this includes the European Union, the United States, India, and Russia". So what countries of origin are covered by this template? --Jarekt (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a crude first pass at a list is: Algeria, China, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Monaco, Namibia, Qatar, Sudan, Swaziland, and Thailand. To construct the list I started with a list of the Berne convention signatories, removed the EU members + U.S. + India + Russia, removed countries with longer terms, and removed countries who could use this template but have better dedicated templates that mention anonymous works (like {{PD-Antigua and Barbuda}}, {{PD-Bahrain}}, etc.). —RP88 (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Probably most 50pma countries (Canada, etc.). Though as mentioned some country-specific tags already mention anonymous works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I removed countries like Canada that have a better template from my list. The list of countries where it would be acceptable, if not best practice, to use this template is much longer. —RP88 (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

1944 French photograph[edit]

I have a lengthy discussion on my talk page about a photograph taken August 24, 1944 in France. Here are the details I could find out so far:

  • Taken anonymously in Paris, France on August 24, 1944.
  • Photograph given to wife of subject shortly later
  • First published in the periodical Pays d'Alsace, issue N° 239 in May 2012

Since it was first published 2012, the (c) will extend until the end of 2082 (+70 years). Therefore neither {{PD-EU-unpublished}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} can be applied. Topping this with a cherry: Not free on URAA date either.

Pictogram voting question.svg Question Did I miss anything that would allow us to host this photo? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Where did you get +70 years? Unless the person who gave it to the periodical was the copyright owner, I don't think it was legally published, and thus any clocks starting on that didn't start.
On the US grounds, the URAA is only relevant for published works. Works unpublished in 2002 have a flat life+70, or for anonymous works, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is less.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Haviland Thin Mints packaging[edit]

I have a picture of a Haviland Thin Mints package that I want to use for the purpose of illustrating the Wikipedia article. Would it be allowed here? Thanks! --Ixfd64 (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)