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 and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.
One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
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).
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.
Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.
There have been inconsistencies in the deletion requests concerning the said Greek bridge. Some resulted to deletions, citing lack of COM:FOP Greece. Others, resulted to being kept, on the grounds that bridges cannot be considered architecture and that there is no protection for bridges under the Greek law, similar to U.S. law's treatment on U.S. bridges.
To complicate things further, there is a censored image of the bridge, used as a protest image by Greek users during the 2015 discourse on the FoP at the EU Parliament.
There should be a discussion to determine the finality of the community consensus for Greek bridges, before either (a) conducting more deletion requests on the bridge, or (b) requesting undeletion of the deleted images (as well as deleting the censored image because it is misleading, as the bridge is not protected by copyright).
Rio–Antirrio Bridge has a section saying Photography by both professional and amateur photographers or cinematographers is allowed and encouraged by the bridge management without the need for a permit...Yann (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann seems a good starting point for free shooting. But it doesn't address the issue if it can be a work of architecture falling under restrictive Greek copyright law (not allowing commercial uses) or just an ordinary structure that can be freely used even without bridge designer's permission. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)09:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If counted as architecture it needs to show somehing unique eligible as work of art to be protected. The bridge shows nothing apart from commonly known structures so nothing eligible for protection. The deleted files should be reviewed and possibly undeleted. --Denniss (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imho we should stay away from framing this bridge as not being a work of art or architecture. It surely is designed by a team of architects and structural designers. COM:Greece is not clear, that is the issue I think. Ellywa (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999 easier said than done with regards to French cases. The management of Millau Viaduct, in their website, asserts they guard Architect Norman Foster's exclusive rights over visual appearances of the bridge, and does not allow commercial uses of the bridge without prior authorization from them. This is on top of French-based ADAGP's continued opposition to Wikipedia and the FoP movement, unless Wikipedia finally chooses to accept using CC-BY-NC-ND licensing (ADAGP treats both Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a single community under the helm of WMF). The bridge management tolerates non-commercial/personal uses, as well as images that only show the viaduct in the background, thus not making it the intended focus of the images. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, old story. Obviously, they wont all promote this. Also, maybe Commons needs to do some changes for architectural photography. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which will end up in another, heated debate on FoP policy of Commons (perhaps you are aware of the discussions that I got involved early this year). The current policy is already stable enough. Not OK to mandate U.S. FoP-only policy on Commons, as several Wikimedia chapters, user groups, and affiliates outside Europe are trying their best to have FoP introduced in their countries (FoP that includes public sculptures too), like those of South Africa and the Philippines. FoP was discussed in the most recent forum held by East Asia-Southeast Asia-Pacific (ESEAP) Wikimedia region last month, in Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, and ESEAP groups agreed to consider initiatives in FoP lobbying. Also, Wiki Commons shouldn't ignore the opposition from ADAGP, Cavada and other French anti-Wikipedia individuals and groups. ADAGP once sent a graffiti artist's cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia France to take down an image of an illegal graffito; for sure, upon learning that Commons shifted to only respect U.S. architectural FoP and not French laws, ADAGP and their fellow peers will certainly protest by persistently demanding take downs of undeleted images of Millau Viaduct, European Parliament building, Grande Arche et cetera. In a nutshell, the current FoP policy mainly anchored on the law of the work's country of physical origin must remain. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)08:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these issues all need to be combined. With the changes Commons needs to do, I was thinking of how architects could go about to authorize photography. Currently, this doesn't really seem obvious. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only inconsistency here in the Greek cases is that no one previously pointed out for the deleted images that we have no evidence from statute or case law that bridges are protected objects. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greek Law 4412/2016 defines 27 categories of engineering design activities. This law is related to expertise of engineers for design of Public Works and not to copyright issues, but may be used as guidance. Of interest in our case are categories 06, 07, 08 and 10:
6. Architectural design of buildings
7. Special architectural design (external spaces, places, parks/gardens, monuments, traditional buildings etc)
8. Structural design (of buldings and large or special bridges/viaducts) The jargon phrase "τεχνικό έργο" (lit. technical project) is used by Greek transportation engineers to refer to bridges and related structures and is used in Law 4412.
10. Transportation design (roads, railways, small bridges and culverts)
Therefore the design of Rio-Antirrio bridge, if it was procured as a traditional public work, would be contracted to a structural engineering office and not to an architect's office. If it has any effect to copyright, it's up to the courts to decide. SV1XV (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sv1xv pending a court case, can we host images of the bridge as a mere non-copyrightable structure? ({{PD-structure}}) However, some users may insist that it goes against the spirit of both COM:PRP and the "Definition of Free Cultural Works" principle formulated by freedomdefined.org. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)12:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we can keep them. However there are copyright extremists on Commons who may disagree. BTW maybe a coincidence, but the Rio-Antirrio bridge is the only modern structure in Greece which features on modern postcards issued after the introduction of the current draconian copyright legislation. All postcards of modern buildings (Athens Hilton Hotel, Telecom Tower of Thessaloniki etc), quite common in 1965-1985, have disappeared. SV1XV (talk)
@Sv1xv: Why do you use terms like "copyright extremists" and "draconian copyright legislation" (of Greece?). On Commons we respect the copyright law in various countries, including the right of makers/designers/artist to earn a living with their work. If you on second thought think these words do not help to find a solution, please remove these from your contribution.
Meanwhile, it is a good idea to try and obtain permission through the design company. I am willing to try, if somebody can find a point of contact. Ellywa (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the issue at the file's talk page on en:wiki 4 months ago, but there was no input, so I'm copying said talk entry of mine here, in hopes that someone could offer some guidance:
This image [mentioned in the header] was published in the "Japanese pictorial magazine about the Sino-Japanese War Asahi-ban Shina-jihen Gaho published on Jan. 27, 1938." according to the information provided in the information box. The page w:en:Talk:Nanjing Massacre denial/Disputed material has further images from that source and those other images have been uploaded to Wiki Commons. So, I'm a bit surprised to see the current license warning for this image. Is the source information for this image incorrect? Is it ok to transfer it to Commons? Or were the other images from this source uploaded to Wiki Commons despite not being in the public domain?
In my opinion the photo should be fine. If first published in Japan, it could be uploaded here as {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. If for some reason or other its first publication turns out to have been in China, then {{PD-PRC}} will also ensure that it is in the public domain in both the source country and the US. Felix QW (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a copyright-related concern, but we can't take the file description at face value and may need a disclaimer on Commons. We don't want to inadvertently repeat Japanese-nationalist revisionist propaganda. Bremps...02:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GerritR: Gibt es denn irgendwelche Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass diese Zeichnung kein eigenes Werk des Benutzers User:Mattatja ist? Ist die Zeichnung, bevor sie als Datei hier hochgeladen wurde, schon anderswo gedruckt oder im Internet veröffentlicht worden? --Rosenzweigτ14:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nein, nicht dass ich wüsste. Trotzdem habe ich Zweifel, ob Zeichner und Hochlader die gleiche Person sind. Das Bild könnte zum Beispiel in den Archiven der Verbindung oder bei einem Mitglied verwahrt sein.--GerritR (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Der Hochlader User:Mattatja hat übrigens auch historische Fotos, die eindeutig nicht von ihm sein können, als "eigenes Werk´" hochgeladen. Dies spricht nicht gerade für urheberrechtliche Sorgfalt bei der Zeichnung.--GerritR (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GerritR Wer würde denn bei einem vermeintlichen Werk aus dem Jahre 1856 das Copyright haben? Laut Wappenrecht scheint es beim Heraldiker zu liegen, der das Wappen entworfen hat, aber dieser ist bei einem Wappen aus dem Jahre 1856 doch sicherlich schon lange tot, wodurch das Wappen wohl gemeinfrei wäre. Nakonana (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Da wäre zum einen COM:Assume good faith zu nennen. Es gibt keinen Grund, anzunehmen, dass dieses Wappen keine eigenhändige Zeichnung ist. Das Wappen hat keine sonderlich schwierigen Elemente, besteht zum Teil aus geometrischen (Teil-)Figuren und man braucht entsprechend kein großes künstlerisches Talent, um es selbst nachzuzeichnen. Es gibt also zahlreiche Leute, die so eine Nachzeichnung, wie man sie hier sieht, problemlos anfertigen könnten. Wenn du annimmst, dass das Bild in den Archiven der Verbindung oder bei einem Mitglied verwahrt wird, so bedeutet dies, dass Mattatja scheinbar Zugang zu besagten Archiven hat oder besagtes Mitglied sein müsste; denn anders käme man an keine Kopie des Bildes. Du könntest die Verbindung also bei Bedarf kontaktieren und auf diese potentielle Urheberrechtsverletzung aufmerksam machen. Aber, wenn du mich fragst, ist das Wappen wirklich nicht schwierig nachzuzeichnen, also sehe ich da keinen Grund zur Annahme einer Urheberrechtsverletzung, es sei denn, es gibt konkrete Hinweise dafür. Nakonana (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich sehe mich keineswegs in der Pflicht, hier irgendwelche Nachforschungen zu betreiben. Hab ich etwa die Beweislast? Was die Annahme, die Zeichnung sei eigenhändig, absolut nicht stützt, ist die Hochladehistorie des Benutzers. Dem unterstelle ich übrigens keinen schlechten Willen (COM:Assume good faith), sondern nur Unachtsamkeit bzw. Bedenkenlosigkeit beim Copyright. Und hier gilt nach wie vor com:pcp.--GerritR (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich würde das Copyright bei der Zeichnung aber in diesem Fall trotzdem nicht anzweifeln, weil dieses Wappen wirklich nicht schwer ist nachzuzeichnen. Ich habe es mal mit dem Kugelschreiber (also ohne Möglichkeit Fehler auszuradieren) ausprobiert und habe in knapp 5 Minuten folgendes Ergebnis zustande bekommen: File:Wappen Wirttembergia 1856 by Nakonana on 20240623 191803.jpg. Mein allererstes eigenhändig gezeichnetes Wappen. Wenn du also Zweifel an dem anderen hast, können wir stattdessen meine Kreation verwenden, die, denke ich, eindeutig und zweifelsfrei als mein Werk identifizierbar ist :) Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Du argumentierst nicht zum Thema "einenes Werk", sondern zum Thema Com:too. Eine Handzeichnung eines Werks ohne eigene Schöpfungshöhe ist aber wie das Foto eines Grashalms: Irgendjemand muss es machen.--GerritR (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Und selbst wenn es jemand macht, wenn es unter COM:TOO fällt, wäre die Urheberrechtsfrage unbedeutend, weil es bei dem Werk gemäß COM:TOO nichts urheberrechtlich zu schützen gäbe.
Es gibt bei dem Wappen einfach keinen Grund, die Eigenständigkeit des Werkes anzuzweifeln, weil es selbst einem ungeübten Menschen mit Leichtigkeit gelingt, eine passable Nachzeichnung anzufertigen. Nakonana (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bloss weil es vermutlich recht simpel ist, das Wappen nachzumalen, heißt das noch lange nicht, dass der Hochlader sich auch tatsächlich selbst die Mühe gemacht hat. und was die sonstigen Beiträge des Hochladers anbelangt, siehe oben. GerritR (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The job of the administrator to determine consensus is to review the evidence provided. You provided the shortest of context and no evidence. No indications of anything else. On the basis of the evidence provided there was not a consensus to delete. PCP says "significant doubt" and the case presented did not reach that standard. Quick Google Lens and TinEye searches presented nothing. It was "in use" so personal artwork isn't ours to determine, and there are so many COA on site, and this is one with an old date. Kept. — billinghurstsDrewth22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GerritR: Letztlich war der Löschantrag ja ziemlich wortkarg, ein bisschen mehr solltest du den schon begründen. Was hier übrig bleibt, ist, dass du die Angabe "eigenes Werk" anzweifelst, weil derselbe Benutzer auch andere Dateien als "eigene Werke" hochgeladen har, obwohl sie offensichtlich keine sind. Das ist durchaus ein nachvollziehbarer Gedankengang, und der sollte auch im Löschantrag stehen und nicht erst in einer späteren Diskussion. Ohne weitere Anhaltspunkte, dass es sich tatsächlich so verhält, kann der abarbeitende Admin aber durchaus entscheiden, dass er die Angabe "eigenes Werk" akzeptiert, weil er eben keinen erheblichen Zweifel (Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle/de) hat. So wie in diesem Fall. --Rosenzweigτ07:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn noch jemand diese meine Zweifel an der Autorenschaft für nicht ganz abwegig hält, dann könnte man ja über eine Erneuerung des LA nachdenken, mit Verweis auf diese Diskussion. Ich selbst lass es lieber. GerritR (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Photograph of 1850 painting that may have never been publicly displayed until recently
I'm not a lawyer but based on Commons:Hirtle chart, if the artist died in 1853 and the work was not published before 2003, then it passed into the public domain on January 1, 2003 on the basis that the author had been dead over 70 years. (This change in status was due to a change in U.S. copyright law effective on that date.) There is no way that copyright could be regained; faithful reproduction of the work does not create a new copyright; it is almost impossible to imagine what intellectual property right Robert M. Hicklin Jr., Inc. is claiming, or how they think they came by that right. Perhaps they are over two decades out of date in their knowledge of copyright law; perhaps they are just bluffing. Your guess is as good a mine. - Jmabel ! talk06:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The painting predates US copyright protection for paintings anyway (it came in 1897 I believe) so I think it's fine, Hirtle chart or not. Bremps...01:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, How is it possible that FlickreviewR reviews a file with a bogus license? If FlickreviewR is not reliable, we have a serious problem. Yann (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FlickrreviewR just confirms what the Flickr page says. It has no way to know whether someone might be committing copyfraud on Flickr. - Jmabel ! talk18:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, at least up to a point. We don't have an equivalent of PD-Mark, so there is only so much the bot can do. Yes, the uploader (now blocked) used the wrong PD tag. We require a PR rationale, Flickr doesn't, so I'm guessing that all the bot can do with "PD-Mark" is to see whether some sort of PD tag is on the file. User:Zhuyifei1999 is listed as operating that bot, but their user page says they are no longer active, so I have absolutely no idea who to ask about the bot. Is it just running as a zombie? - Jmabel ! talk20:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me it seems far preferable to flag pages with the PD-Mark for human review rather than to attempt to verify them. Even {{PDMark-owner}} is not valid if the Flickr user is not clearly the copyright owner, so there is no on-size-fits-all tag for images with Flickr PD-Mark. The situation is much more akin to a non-Flickr-upload than to a reviewed Flickr upload with license. Felix QW (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if the listed bot operator "retired" in March 2020 (by putting the retired-box on his userpage), with sporadic contributions until May 2023 afterwards. Apparently Stemoc rebooted it when it got stuck in February. I found a recent talk page discussion regarding the bot's treatment of PD-Mark files, but I am not sure that it became clear what the current behaviour is exactly. Of course, it doesn't help if such discussions are on a talk page of an inactive user with 1-day archiving in place. Felix QW (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this was published in 1971 and there doesn't appear to be a copyright notice, am I right in thinking the photo in it can be uploaded with a PD-US-no notice tag? Shapeyness (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Я пишу статті про загиблих військовослужбовців свого підрозділу. Відповідно, що беру фотографію, яку зробили їх побратими під час служби. На жаль не всі багато фотографій і доводиться використовувати наявні. Часто є лише одна фотографія, яку також використовують в медіа виданнях. І я дуже сумніваюсь, що вони мають хоч якісь права на дані публікації, утім зі статей такі фотографії регулярно видаляють посилаючись на авторське право.
Як такі фотографії публікувати? Mykhailo Zinenko MLT (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publication of photos of fallen servicemen
I write articles about the fallen servicemen of my unit. Accordingly, I take a photo that was taken by their brothers during the service. Unfortunately, not all of them have a lot of photos and we have to use the existing ones. Often there is only one photo, which is also used in media publications. And I very much doubt that they have any rights to these publications, but such photos are regularly removed from articles citing copyright.
@Lalchhanhima hmar Zote: Hi, leh kan lo lawm e. I ngaihtuahna chu i watermark chu a lang kim lo tih a nih chuan COM:WATERMARK angin paih chhuah hi ngaihtuah la.
I uploaded an image - an eye posted by Hercules_hippo - which apparently has been removed by Wikimedia - and am now being sued by Pixsy for $1750. The image was apparently posted on Flickr by Tom Tolkien but it ended up in Wikimedia Commons.
I run a patient supported chronic illness website and fees like this are egregious for a website like ours.
Any ideas? Pixys is willing to come down to $1550 - an amazing amount of money for a one-time use of an image I uploaded from Wikimedia Commons.
If you are indeed a party to ongoing litigation ("[I] am now being sued by Pixsy"), which you may be conflating with a mere demand/cease and desist, it is extremely unwise to be making public comments, and potentially soliciting legal advise ("Any ideas?") You alone are responsible for your use, if any, of copyrighted works and for verifying the accuracy and limitations of purported licenses. We cannot offer you assistance. Consider retaining competent representation promptly. Эlcobbolatalk15:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the two images pointed out by Felix QW were uploaded to Thomas Tolkien's Flickr account as CC-BY ([3][4]). Anyone reusing these images needs to properly attribute the photographer, according to the terms of the CC-BY license. Tolkien states on his profile page that he uses Pixsy to enforce his copyrights. (Not that this automatically means you should pay what they're asking. There is a lot of information and advice out there about Pixsy.) Toohool (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you shouldn't pay what they ask. US$1750 for a single use is extortion. You may have to pay something, but you should be able to negotiate a much smaller amount. Yann (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single dime would be appropriate. The file was licensed as CC-BY. The problem apparently comes because the re-user did not give proper attribution, so they can ask whatever they want, but ultimately it'd be up to the judiciary... Bedivere (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've always wondered where the line is legally with someone reusing a file without attribution that's licensed as CC-BY. As attribution really kind of seems like a secondary requirement that runs counter to the nature of the thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the author didn't want attribution, they should have used a CC-0. The nature of the thing is that a CC-BY work can be used if attribution is properly given. I don't know how to communicate that better.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, quite disagree. Someone making minor mistakes (misspelling the attribution, or failing to name the license overtly) may constitute a good-faith effort to conform to the free license, but use without any attribution at all when the license requires attribution is just as clear a copyright violation as if the free license had never been offered. - Jmabel ! talk04:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 likely a major requirement. At least as per a 2008 U.S. court ruling mentioned in this article of Encyclopædia Britannica: "In 2008 a U.S. federal appeals court ruled that, although they are commonly viewed as contracts, free licenses—which grant freedom to use copyrighted materials in exchange for adherence to certain terms of usage, distribution, and modification—are nonetheless enforceable under copyright law because they "set conditions on the use of copyrighted work." In the event that the conditions are violated, the license disappears, resulting in copyright infringement as opposed to the lesser violation of breach of contract." We might have overlooked a single court ruling that seems to legitimize free licenses as valid enforcements under copyright law. The amount of money requested may be too drastic, though. US$1550 is equivalent to more than ₱91,000 (in our currency), which is higher than the local prices of some of high-end models of appliances from Fujidenzo/Asahi/Hanabishi et cetera! JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)05:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly we don't know the exact circumstances in this case, but I assume the whole "failure to allow a good faith re-user the opportunity to correct errors is against the intent of the license" thing would apply. It seems like Pixsy didn't and doesn't follow it on there end though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should report Thomas Tolkien to Flickr for violating their Community Guidelines. Flickr has a strict policy prohibiting copyleft trolling: "Failure to allow a good faith reuser the opportunity to correct errors is against the intent of the license and not in line with the values of our community, and can result in your account being removed." To report Tolkien, you can either go to https://www.flickrhelp.com/hc/en-us/requests/new and select "Trust and Safety" for "What can we help you with today?" or you can just email helpflickr.com. As far as Pixsy is concerned, I would completely ignore them if it were me, but I'm not a lawyer and you shouldn't take any legal suggestions from me. Nosferattus (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Thomas Tolkien doing the trolling or is Pixsy doing the trolling, though? Maybe Tolkien wasn't actively engaged in the current demand and Pixsy is just patrolling on his behalf without informing him of each and every case. If it's the latter, Pixsy might not be aware of Flickr's site rules, but that doesn't mean that they can just ignore them. I'm just wondering whether one should go straight to getting Tolkien banned or whether one should assume good faith on Tolkien's end and lack of knowledge and Pixsy's end and therefore send a message to Pixsy to inform them they go against site rules, and also send Tolkien a message that Pixsy is acting in a way that might get him banned from Flickr. Nakonana (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Just read a little bit on it and it looks like the copyright holder is always involved in the process and that this is a systematic problem. Nakonana (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to threads at https://copyrightaid.co.uk/, one person offered Pixsy 1/10th of the original amount demanded and Pixsy accepted the offer. Another person offered half, which Pixsy did not accept, and since then has just been ignoring the demands for almost a year and still has not actually been sued (as of their most recent update a month ago). I imagine it is ultimately up to the photographer whether they accept a counter-offer or pursue actual legal action (instead of just extorting you with threats). Nosferattus (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading about someone who got a bill from them for like $500, offered them $150, and then got ghosted. So I'm kind if or to what degree they are willing to sue people who won't pay the full amount. It seems like they are more into bullying and attempting to extort people then they are actually going to court over an infringement claim. Which I guess makes sense. It probably wouldn't be a sustainable business if they took everyone who didn't immediately pay up to court over a $500 bill. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've thought about uploading to Commons this session from a 2002 session of the National Assembly of Venezuela ([5]), but I wanted to ask about the copyright first.
The logo in the upper left suggests that the author is the state television station Venezolana de Televisión, but being an official act I was wondering if this could be under the public domain per {{PD-VenezuelaGov}}. The YouTube uploader says he received the recording in a VHS from a friend, although I don't know if this is relevant. Cheers. NoonIcarus (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus;Buenas según el último párrafo de la licencia en Venezuela ({{PD-VenezuelaGov}}) dice claramente que fueron creados por el sector público o financiado por ellos se considerará del dominio público (osea VTV forma parte del gobierno entonces si puede publicar a Wikimedia los logos qué fueron creados por el sector público) AbchyZa22 (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Translation (as the person who originally asked speaks English): According to the last paragraph of the license in Venezuela (PD-VenezuelaGov), it clearly states that works created by the public sector or financed by them will be considered public domain (meaning VTV is part of the government, so it can publish to Wikimedia the logos that were created by the public sector). Bremps...00:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recently got in a row with a couple of other users over some DRs having to do with "restored" or "completed" stained glass windows, which IMO were different enough from the originals to warrant a new copyright. Although it was the opinion of other people in the deletion requests that restoration work on something or completing it (whatever that might mean) doesn't create a new copyright. I can understand that position in cases where the restoration is minor, but it seems like there should be a line there were if the artist doing the restoration takes artistic liberties in the process or otherwise alters the original to add modern elements to it that those parts of the window (or whatever) would then be copyrighted by said person. I'm wondering where the line is though or for that matter if my opinion about it is completely wrong. Adamant1 (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to vary from country to country and (within most countries) on the amount of creativity required. For example, only the few countries with "sweat of the brow" rules (which Commons usually ignores) could even possibly grant copyright for a faithful restoration of a known prior state of the work, but probably even some color decisions would be enough to get copyright in many countries, if not all. - Jmabel ! talk19:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Office often receives applications to register preexisting works that have been restored to their original quality and character. Merely restoring a damaged or aged photograph to its original state without adding a sufficient amount of original, creative authorship does not warrant copyright protection.
The registration specialist will analyze on a case-by-case basis all claims in which the author used digital editing software to produce a derivative photograph or artwork. Typical technical alterations that do not warrant registration include aligning pages and columns; repairing faded print and visual content; and sharpening and balancing colors, tint, tone, and the like, even though the alterations may be highly skilled and may produce a valuable product. If an applicant asserts a claim in a restoration of or touchups to a preexisting work, the registration specialist generally will ask the applicant for details concerning the nature of changes that have been made. The specialist will refuse all claims where the author merely restored the source work to its original or previous content or quality without adding substantial new authorship that was not present in the original.
The specialist may register a claim in a restored or retouched photograph if the author added a substantial amount of new content, such as recreating missing parts of the photograph or using airbrushing techniques to change the image.
This general guidance can change by country, along with their threshold of originality. In general, restoring something to its original state seems unlikely to generate a copyright unless maybe there is sweat of the brow (and not sure the old UK law qualifies, as something must "originate" with the author there, which is harder to argue in cases like that). Adding new elements would be based a country's threshold of originality, which is somewhat variable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised something. Doesn't a flag count as applied art? Looking at the COPYRIGHT AND RELATED RIGHTS ACT NO. 42 OF 2000, applied art is defined as "an artistic creation with utilitarian functions or incorporated in a useful article". A flag clearly fits that description: it is "a usually rectangular piece of fabric of distinctive design that is used as a symbol ..., as a signaling device, or as a decoration" (MW). Flying a symbol of a nation is clearly a utilitarian function. Since applied arts only have a 25-year copyright span, that means the copyright expired in 2006, which is even before the URAA date for Vanuatu. @JWilz12345, thoughts? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That maybe so, but a similar case was the Australian Aboriginal flag which was copyrighted in Australia until recently (which meant it couldn’t be uploaded to Commons). Bidgee (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the SVG is the one who drew it. Whether that could be considered a derivative work of another drawing, not sure. As far as U.S. law goes, it would appear the original drawing is PD-EdictGov since it was included as part of their law. They do have an explicit copyright claim in their law, but not sure that can hold for third-party drawings like this. As an aside, a flag drawing is not utilitarian. The cloth itself may be, but the design is entirely separable. In most cases, the design is an idea, and each specific drawing of that idea is a separate expression with an independent copyright (if it's complex enough to be copyrightable in the first place). See Commons:Coats of arms. So, taking drawings of flags from other websites can be a bad idea if not licensed. If an actual drawing is included in the law, you get into PD-EdictGov territory. The main thing which is copyrightable is the drawing of the fern leaves, and that does not appear to be derivative of the drawing in the law -- that appears to be original, or maybe the vector was copied from some other PD source. The drawing of the tusk is likewise not the same copyright-wise as the drawing in the law, if the one I'm looking at is correct.[6] It's similar, but a different expression of the same idea. You can't use copyright to prevent someone from drawing something similar; you can only protect the actual expression (the very specific lines drawn). If you are trying to prevent commercial use as a symbol, that is a trademark-like restriction. While you cannot explicitly trademark national flags or seals, you can certainly make {{Insignia}} type laws, and Vanuatu definitely has done that -- but those are non-copyright restrictions. That seems to be what their government means by "commercial use", more in the trademark area. Getting into deletion of self-drawn versions of national flags is probably not a good idea. If the specific drawing was taken from another website, that is another matter, but deeming a national flag as inherently unable to be on Commons, we may need some better precedent as I'm not sure that is possible, from a copyright perspective. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iceland, like many European countries, does not grant regular copyright to non-artistic photography but a much more limited exclusive right valid for 50 years after creation. This term was 25 years until 2006 so at that time, such works created on or before 1980 were in the public domain in Iceland. However, because of the URAA, such works are probably only in the public domain in the US if they were already in the public domain in Iceland on 1 Januar 1996. This would mean that only non-artistic photographs created in Iceland on or before the calendar year of 1970 qualify as being in the public domain in both the US and Iceland and thus eligible to be uploaded to the Commons. This would then also mean that Template:PD-Iceland50 was only relevant up to 2020 and will probably never be relevant again because the assumed copyright protection in the US under URAA is always much longer than 50 years. This template should probably change to PD-Iceland 1970 to reflect that later works will not be in the Public Domain in the US until 2065 at the earliest. Is my thinking correct here? Bjarki S (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many tags here are country-specific, ignoring the U.S. status. However, in that case it should also have the standard note that this tag does not represent the status for the U.S., and a separate U.S. tag is required. A combined tag which has the 1970 date may be useful, or maybe editing this tag similar to {{PD-Sweden-photo}} to note dates where PD-1996 would apply. But if this clause remains in current law, it could still be useful in some cases. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts? UK-filmed film that was also released in US. Unclear if image originates from US or UK trailer. Movie itself almost certainly still copyrighted. Bremps...00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found the trailer on the Internet Archive https://archive.org/details/vm982760352 & also on Commons here. There is no notice and is credited to being published by Warner Bros; the American distributor. I would imagine it was the American film company that would have handled the distribution of the trailer and would likely have been first published there. PascalHD (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Files on Commons need to be public domain in their home country and in the United States (excepting free licenses, of course, but that's not happening here). Would this be free in the UK? Or does this not count as UK-made at all? Bremps...02:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And is there a distinction between us hosting the U.S. trailer in its entirety (U.S.-made, PD in U.S.) and taking a frame from it, when that frame is clearly of UK origin? - Jmabel ! talk05:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New to Wikimedia, don't know how to determine copyright status
I want to upload the picture of Hardeep Singh Nijjar brandishing a rifle in this article-[7]. This is a commonly circulated picture that has used by various media outlets, including the Globe and Mail. As I have zero experience in Wikimedia, I don't know what license/Creative Commons license the image falls under. I would appreciate any help in determining the copyright status of it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry to bear bad news, but probably don't upload it. If a photo is copyright-ambiguous, it is likely to be copyrighted. Then it would not be suitable for Commons (or allowed at all). Don't get discouraged, ask for more help here if it is needed. Cheers, atque supra! Bremps...01:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage you to learn more about Copyright before uploading anything. Start here at COM:Licensing. The photo you linked is by default copyrighted to whomever the photographer/creator is. In order to use that photo here, the photographer would have to license the photo under a Creative Commons license themselves. Otherwise, cannot be uploaded until it becomes Public Domain due to expiry. PascalHD (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least 95% of what is on the web, probably more, is copyrighted and not free-licensed. Without a good basic understanding of copyright, you are very likely to stumble upon an image online that we can use on Commons, unless you stick to stuff that is 19th-century and older (and even late 19th century has some pitfalls). But if you are taking pictures yourself -- especially of people rather than of other people's creations -- most of that should be OK. - Jmabel ! talk05:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the works of Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo in the public domain?
@Zanahary: Certainly seems likely. The only thing that might get tricky is if something was initially or simultaneously published in the U.S., but given that he wrote in French that seems very unlikely. Translations would typically not be OK, because the translator would probably have lived until less than 70 years ago. - Jmabel ! talk05:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, why? I think everything which was published in 1929 and later hit the URAA in 1996 and is still copyrighted in the US? Or there is something I am missing here? Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ymblanter here. It seems like Madagascar already had 70 year pma copyright periods in 1996, so that all post-1928 works will still be copyrighted in the US.
Do I understand correctly that even French simultaneous publication wouldn't help, since although France had 50 years pma in 1996, the 8 year 120 days wartime copyright extension made it copyrighted until April 1996? Felix QW (talk) 10:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you take the 8 years and 120 days from the actual date of death, and ignore the end-of-year expirations (which did not happen until after those extensions were given), it may have expired at the end of 1995. I'm not sure there is any guidance on that, but does not make much sense to me to extend to the end of the year first -- I would probably add the 8 years and 120 days to the date of death, then go to the end of that resulting year. So, it might. Madagascar is also interesting... before late 1995 when the new law was in place, they apparently used France's law from 1957 -- but that version did not yet include the wartime extensions, it seems, so they were a straight 50pma.[8] The 1995 law has no mention of repealing the earlier law nor any transitional provisions, so I can't tell if it was retroactive. It has no mention of treatment of works which were public domain at the time of the new law, which is a usual feature of laws which bring back works from the public domain. If it was not retroactive, then this author's works may have also expired in Madagascar, as of 1988. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About France, was this not discussed many years ago? Although the prorogation for WW2 had been added in 1951, it seems logical that the copyright owners could benefit of the copyright computation according to the 1957 law, first going to the end of the year of death, plus fifty years. And then the war extension, being an extension, would still be added at the end. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the case, but the intent of the end-of-year stuff was to have stuff expire on January 1, not in April. Secondly, the wording of the law is specific that the extensions extend the rights in the earlier 1866 law, not the end-of-year terms which only started in the 1957 law. The wartime extensions were not in the 1957 law (though were inherited from earlier laws and not repealed); I'm not sure they were part of the law which was applied to Madagascar (given that territory would have had different impacts from the wars, and the "died for France" extension may not make much sense there.). It could well be our policy is to take the most conservative possibility, though it makes little sense to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: In France, old unpublished works get a new 25 years term. So anything published before 1999 (in 2024) is OK. Or if you have the unpublished manuscript, scan and publish it yourself, you get an exclusive 25 years copyright. Yann (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, putting anything on a website is publication. But may be they are willing to publish them under a free license. It usually depends on the commercial value of the documents. Yann (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Posthumous works get a protection period of 70 years from publication, per Madagascar law. Looks like there is infinite protection for unpublished works there, still. If publication happened after the 70pma period, then that right is owned by the publishers. So, you would need to find publication dates for anything he did, to start with. Works published during his lifetime have a decent argument, afterwards gets a lot less likely. I think the former French law was similar, though with a term of 50 years instead of 70. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure it is necessarily under TOO UK. The interesting thing is, though, that this advertisement suggests that the logo may have been in use already in 1927, in Germany. It does not seem to me to be above TOO Germany, and if it was used before 1928, its American copyright would have lapsed on the design in either case. This is separate to issues with the specific svg and potential vectorisation copyright. Felix QW (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert in the British threshold of originality, but to me that could already be beyond it. My comment was directed at the logo itself rather than this concrete image of the record. Felix QW (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The English version of {{FoP-Belgium}} it states «[...] provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there [...]» and if I'm not mistaken it restricts the modification that one can make on a photo. So, my question is if File:Asterix&Obelix Brussels-cropped2.png is an allowed DW of File:Comic wall Asterix & Obelix, Goscinny and Uderzo. Brussels.jpg. My intuition suggest it is not as the DW doesn't look like a photo taken on a mural and part of the DW is interpolating the gaps after removing the surrounding characters, but maybe the experts on the Belgian copyright have a different opinion. Günther Frager (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Günther Frager I can't speak on the condition imposed by the Belgian FoP that was lobbied by the Wikimedians there way back 2016 (ping @Romaine: who actively lobbied for introduction of FoP there). My understanding tells me that the FoP of Belgium seems aligning to its peers (Dutch FoP, German FoP), in which excessive modification to the point that the integrity of the depicted work is affected is already a breach of the FoP rules. Cropping out all surrounding elements (like the sky, ground or grass et cetera) so that the image consists of an exact reproduction of a building, sculpture et cetera is one of such excessive modifications. Germany, where FoP originated, does not allow radical forms of digital editing, such as changing the colors of their public monuments. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)01:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 I cannot comment on the possible conflict of the German FoP to both commercial-type CC licenses (like {{CC-zero}} and {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}and the FreedomDefined.org position that some German Wikimedians claimed as "extremist" and unrealistic, in the context of images of buildings and public monuments of Germany. It was debated on FoP talk page (see Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/Archive 1#Germany). Let's ping again the participants on that late-2000s discussion that have still contributed/made edits on Commons from 2022 up to this day: @H-stt, Historiograf, Wuselig, Jeff G., Micheletb, and ALE!: . At worst, meta:Creative Commons Foundation should have a public and solid statement regarding the nuances of Freedom of Panorama even in countries that we consider as having suitable FoP for Commons, like Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Malaysia, Hong Kong, mainland China, Singapore, India, Australia, and New Zealand. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)02:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Günther Frager, The example File:Asterix&Obelix Brussels-cropped2.png is modified, shows only a part of the image and no longer the situation as it is on the location. FoP in Belgium states that objects photographed are allowed as long as they are depicted as on location. As that is no longer the case here, this image is copyrighted and not allowed on Commons. (PS: I lobbied in the Belgian parliament for FoP and FoP came officially in force in 2016.) Romaine (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Berne Convention allows FoP type of limitations to copyright, but they also say that any such allowed uses cannot go to the point they prejudice the normal exploitation of the work -- I've always taken that to mean you can't make a sculpture of a sculpture, or make an effective copy of a 2-D work by cropping to just that work and exclude its public context, etc. I think once you remove the public context, you are also going outside any FoP permissions, and are a direct usage of the original work (i.e. the photographic expression, the work using FoP, is gone). It is a direct usage/derivative of the original, without the photographic expression being present. So, I would say this is a problem. We have always accepted that as an OK limitation to host FoP works -- you can make a derivative work of the photograph, but not to the point there is no photograph left. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg the Berne Convention does not mention anything resembling FoP. It only states that member states can make a list of exceptions/limitations to copyright, as long as normal exploitation of the work is not prejudiced. FoP may be one of these limitations, but there are also limitations on educational, research, and other uses. At least, there was an attempt in the past to have an architectural FoP be explicitly-mentioned in the treaty, from the meetings between WIPO and UNESCO in 1986 (see meta:Freedom of Panorama#A close call: 1986 WIPO-UNESCO proposal for global architectural FoP). For some reason, though, no such architectural FoP provision is present in the treaty. In fact, a few scholars and architects, like Architect Clark Thiel (1990), argued that the American FoP (Section 120(a) of U.S. Copyright Act) is a violation of the treaty, since the treaty "requires that copyright protection extend to the exclusive right of adaptation for all protected works, including architectural works." Unsure if there is anti-FoP sentiment among a few American architects and scholars today. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)05:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, Berne does not mention FoP, but does restrict limitations such that the normal exploitation is not prejudiced. Effectively making a copy of the work on display is pretty much squarely in direct competition with the original, and I think would violate that Berne clause. FoP clauses are typically in the list of limitation clauses that laws have, pursuant to that Berne article. So I don't think FoP provisions can go that far. Interesting that a Berne clause specifically about architecture was discussed. I don't think the U.S. law violates Berne -- another architect making a derivative work of a building is a problem without permission; architecture has derivative work protection. The law simply states that the specific case of photographs of buildings (located in public places) are not derivative works basically (it's not within the scope of the architectural copyright). It's in line with FoP clauses elsewhere. Photographs of buildings are not part of the "normal exploitation" of a building. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg I think that the minority group of U.S. architects who opposed AWCPA's Sec. 120(a) way back in early 1990s based their arguments on the French copyright rules, that unambiguously does not allow commercial uses of images of architecture. Still, at least in a small circle within the scholarly and architectural community, the Section 120(a)'s compliance with the Berne has been put into question. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)06:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was from when the law was first going in, and architecture (beyond the drawing copyright of plans) was getting protection for the first time. The U.S. law also plainly stated that the text of the Berne Convention is not legally binding in the U.S.; only the text of the incorporating law. They could file a complaint with the WTO these days I guess but that type of limitation seems clearly in line with what Berne allows. (The U.S. did try to avoid restoring copyright; countries did complain about that, which eventually led to the URAA restorations as that was the compromise.) What France chooses to allow has no effect in the U.S. I don't think there is any serious challenge to it; the lawmakers clearly did not want to change the ability to take photos of buildings which had been fine forever in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The picture being in Bruxelles, Belgian law applies. It states two conditions :
«the reproduction [...] is as it is found there», which implies that the picture cannot be edited and modified.
«this reproduction [...] does not cause unreasonable harm to the legitimate interests of the author», which means that it cannot be used comercially without limits (as explicited by the legistative discussion).
Tipically, File:Asterix&Obelix Brussels-cropped2.png cannot be printed on a T-shirt to be commercialized, which is equivalent in effect to a CC-NC licence, not accepted on Commons (even though its presence in Wikipedia pages would be legal with respect to that point of view). But in the first place, its being cropped and edited infringes the first condition, which is equivalent in effect to a CC-ND clause in that case. The picture therefore cannot be uploaded on Commons and must be deleted.
Freedom of panorama in Belgium allows for instance pictures of the atomium, because such pictures can be reproduced without authorization or payment, and their reproduction cannot cause an unreasonable harm to the author's rights. This is why it is acceptable on Commons. It does allow for pictures like File:Comic wall Asterix & Obelix, Goscinny and Uderzo. Brussels.jpg, because the wall is reproduced as-is, and that reproduction does no harm to Uderzo's interests. But {{FoP-Belgium}} is definitively not equivalent to a CC-BY-SA, so derivative works should be considered with caution. This is why it is in Category:Restriction tags. It is the same problem as with the de minimis clause : a picture may be acceptable on commons even though an excerpt of it would not, it is the responsibility of the editor to remain within the legal limits.
My (very limited) understanding of the Belgian law is that while cropping of the mural is permitted, isolating elements is not, as they don't appear as shown on the public wall. Here both the individual figures have to go as copyvios. h-stt!?18:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone check User:Studio Harcourt ticket #2010061710041251 to see what images it covers, just the ones loaded, the entire historical archive, or those images taken after 1991. RAN (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way it was stated on the page of User:Studio Harcourt by the OTRS member who processed the ticket in 2010, and consequently the way we, ordinary users, have understood the situation since then, the ticket #2010061710041251 is essentially a confirmation that the Commons account User:Studio Harcourt officially represented the Studio Harcourt. Consequently, we can conclude that the license (which is CC BY 3.0), placed by that account on the photos uploaded by that account, is valid. The matter is also referenced in the press reports listed on the page Commons:Studio Harcourt. The reply that you obtained yesterday from a VRT member at Commons:VRT/Noticeborad likely means the same thing. Given that the ticket is essentially related to that Commons account, it covers the photos uploaded by that account, nothing else. Other photos from after 1991 are assumed to be not free, unless there is evidence of a release by the copyright owner. That was also the essence of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roland Copé.jpg last year. For a more detailed recapitulaton of the whole situation and of the different possible cases, please see the page Commons:Bistro/archives/2023/09#Studio Harcourt (2) (in French). -- Asclepias (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to use a wikipedia image in another article wikipedia
(Commons has no involvement in this, but I'm answering here because I happen to know the answer.) @Marius F: en:File:Total War Saga Troy cover art.jpg is in the English-language Wikipedia under a non-free use rationale, explained on that file page by a use of en:Template:Non-free use rationale 2. To use that image in a different en-wiki article, you would need an acceptable rationale for that second use, which would also have to be stated on that file page (presumably also using a template). You'll probably want to read en:Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline to see if what you have in mind is acceptable there. If you have further questions after reading that, you should certainly ask them on en-wiki rather than Commons. - Jmabel ! talk03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am seeking to upload the image located at https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C292398 to Commons so it can be used at en:Frognall, Melbourne on en-wiki. The image, created in 1944, is in the public domain in Australia (its country of origin) and is marked as such on the source website, but I am unsure of its copyright status in the United States. Specifically, it appears that copyright in Australia expired on 19 January 2014 (70 years after the photograph's creation; photograph has no identifiable author), which is after the COM:URAA cutoff date of 1 January 1996. Is the image in the public domain in the United States or would it still be in copyright there? Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Comment The job of the administrator to determine consensus is to review the evidence provided. You provided the shortest of context and no evidence. No indications of anything else. On the basis of the evidence provided there was not a consensus to delete. PCP says "significant doubt" and the case presented did not reach that standard. Quick Google Lens and TinEye searches presented nothing. It was "in use" so personal artwork isn't ours to determine, and there are so many COA on site, and this is one with an old date. Kept. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
flickr.com. As far as Pixsy is concerned, I would completely ignore them if it were me, but I'm not a lawyer and you shouldn't take any legal suggestions from me. Nosferattus (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
