Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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 and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Please note
  1. 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.
  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.
  5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.


1966 UK business cards: ToO?[edit]

Would we say that these business cards fall below the threshold of originality? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I think probably copyrightable, especially in the UK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Could we use a reverse image search bot to fight copyright violations?[edit]

Throwing out an idea here; please let me know if it's been considered before or would need changes to work.

An extremely common occurrence here is for new users to upload images they found elsewhere on the internet and claim them as own work. We catch many of these, but some seem to fall through the cracks. Would it be possible to create a bot that goes through all uploads by new users and compiles a list of the ones that return results from a reverse image search and the URLs from those results? Patrollers could then go through that and challenge licenses as needed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 23:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Anyone? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
As someone very concerned by copyright violations, I support this idea. The fact that it would just be a tool for manual reviewers should also prevent this from getting out of hand.  Mysterymanblue  20:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I know it has been mentioned, but not sure discussions got anywhere, and can't find them. We would have to see if the terms of service of the reverse-image sites would allow us to do that in an automated fashion; I have my doubts there -- those services usually require substantial payment for usage on that scale. The information would certainly help us of course, though there would probably be lots of implementation details to work through (might only apply to "own work" claims, for example, because people can upload old works if copyright has expired and those are likely in many places in the Internet already). But I imagine the cost issue would likely stop most things until that is solved. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Ah, that's too bad. Reaching out to those websites to see if they'd be willing to provide their services to us for free would be something perhaps best suited for the WMF to do. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
images.google does image search. Google is the single highest donator to wikimedia. Ex-google-managers are WMF-managers. The SDC-suggestion-tool uses google-image-recognition-software for suggestions. Seems it is only a question of WMF asking Google to get free access to mass reverse image search? --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Symbol support vote.svg Support, at least a pilot project should be started. It's ridiculous that as of today even the first step of the search for potential copyvios has to be done manually by volunteers. --Túrelio (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
This idea seems well within the possible scope of the Wikimedia Enterprise API Project, as it is just the reciprocal idea: high-volume commercial reusers of Wikimedia (or Google reverse image search) content. Maybe LBecker (WMF) would like to comment? Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Protective edge in Shuja'iyya.webm[edit]

Its said that the file[1] is available under CC 3.0 but I didn't found anything on relevant YouTube page also the reviewer is globally banned user. Could someone clarify --Shrike (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]

An archived copy of the page from around the time it was uploaded has a Creative Commons license attached. The notice is hidden behind the "show more" link, which doesn't play nice with Internet Archive, but you can right-click on the page, select view page source, and search for "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" to see that it was once present. clpo13(talk) 19:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[]
But the current version of the page doesn't mention it. Can we still use it? --Shrike (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes, as long as the previous version is documented by a licence review, because CC licences are permanent. (While INC was banned for good reasons, I don’t recall any doubt being cast on his work in this area. Of course the IA backup makes it unnecessary to take it on faith in this case.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC) P.S. I’ve tagged the file with {{Change-of-license}}.—06:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emosson Construction.jpg[edit]

The photo is POTY 2020 finalist so the request should be reviewed and closed quickly. --jdx Re: 12:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Anonymous, undated US image[edit]

How could we tag the image captioned:

"“Virginia and José Gonsalves Correia,” Unknown (photographer). Department of Ornithology Archives, AMNH, accessed September 3, 2020."

on [2]? It is anonymous, clearly made before 1950 (the male subject died in 1954, aged 73; the woman was born in 1900). It was likely taken in the United States. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

In theory, without knowing a publication history, any US work created at any time could still be under copyright. Tell me when this was first published and where, and I can say. Otherwise, we have to assume it was first published 1989-2002 and is under copyright until something like 2070 (1950+120 years for unknown authors).--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I have now been provided with an uncropped version of the image which includes the photographer credit: Manuel E. Sylvia, of 251 Dartmouth Street, New Bedford, USA (see also [3]). He died in 1967. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Emblem of the Greek Junta[edit]

I found this locally uploaded file at the English-language Wikipedia which has the description "This image is a scan taken from an old leaflet published during the period of the Greek military dictatorship. The logo was to be found everywhere, and was not copyrighted.", the page "Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Greece" further states "Under Law No. 2121/1993 as amended up to Law No. 4531/2018, there is no copyright protection for official texts expressive of the authority of the State, notably legislative, administrative or judicial texts, nor for expressions of folklore, news information or simple facts and data." So is this image free or not? Please ping me when replying. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The exemption is only for texts. Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Low-res cover art of an album got deleted[edit]

Hi, I am new here and I have a question. I uploaded a low-res cover art of an album "New Rules" by Weki Meki and it got deleted because it didn't have the copyright licence. I don't know who the copyright owner is (most likely their record label), but I noticed that most low-res cover arts are marked as fair use, because their solely purpose is to illustrate the audio recording in question. What can I do to prevent it from being deleted next time? Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wekimekifan (talk • contribs) 23:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Wekimekifan: the non-free covers you’ve seen were almost certainly hosted locally on the WP site where they’re used. Commons—this site—does not accept media on a “fair use” basis; see COM:FU. Assuming the article to be illustrated is on the English Wikipedia, if you upload your image there and take for example the File page for a cover shown in any similar article, justifying the usage according to en:WP:FUR, you should be fine.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:Pictish Stone distribution.jpg FAO David Lloyd Author[edit]

My friend Mary Melville is writing a book on the Book of Deer and it's Place in History. She wants to include several illustrations from commons.wikimedia of which the above is one. Is this the right forum for requests for copyright? If so may we use a copy of this file please and what would you like us to reference it as? If not I'd be obliged if someone (administrator?) would help me find the right way to do this. I got a very nice reply from the owner of File:Coffret aux saintes huiles, étain - Église de Thorigné-en-Charnie.jpg after I had sent a request but unfortunately I have no real idea how I did it. Mary's book is to raise funds for the Book of Deer Project S.C.I.O. Scottish charity number SCO30656 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowhedgerow (talk • contribs) 11:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Sparrowhedgerow: Hi, and welcome. Please see COM:REUSE, Commons:Help desk/Archive/2021/10#Categories (++): Musée de Mayenne (−) (±) (↓) (↑)Chrismatories (−) (±) (↓) (↑)Église Saint-Étienne de Thorigné-en-Charnie (−) (±) (↓) (↑)(+) Hidden categories: CC-BY-SA-3.0Self-published work, and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello Jeff G. I'm sorry I don't understand what you are telling me. I see the reference to Musee de Mayenne - but this request is for Pictish stone distribution? I am very lost on this website and need an idiot's guide to it. The image for the pictish stones belongs to David Lloyd so can I use the image and attribute it to CC-by-dl - David Lloyd - Wikimedia Commons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowhedgerow (talk • contribs) 14:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC) sorry this is Sparrowhedgerow and I'm sorry I forgot to sign it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowhedgerow (talk • contribs) 14:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Sparrowhedgerow: You don't need to ask permission to use any of the images on Wikimedia Commons; blanket permission has already been given, subject to some small conditions. Just follow the guidelines on the image page. For example, on File:Pictish Stone distribution.jpg, look for the heading "Licensing". There are two boxes below that, one for each licence (some of our images have just one; some two, a few, more), and below those it says "You may select the license of your choice." So read them both (one starts "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license."; the other "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License...") and follow whichever suits you best. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you Jeff and Andy. Two more questions - how can I see this query in the future i.e. once it is off the main page on village pump and how can I talk to either of you without using this query? Sparrowhedgerow 22 Oct 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparrowhedgerow (talk • contribs) 12:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Sparrowhedgerow: You can talk to me using the link in my "signature" (at the end of this comment). In case I am not around, Commons:Help desk is a good place for questions such as yours. You might also like to try the tutorial at Commons:First steps. This discussion will eventually be archived, probably on Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/10, but if we talk for long enough on Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/11. Finally, please type ~~~~ (or use the toolbar icon that looks like this to do so) at the end of your comments, to insert a "signature", like mine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Andy, I tried clicking 'talk' then 'edit' and I clicked on your name Andy Mabbett - on all occasions I clicked on 'edit' to leave a message - the last yime on your personal page I got an error message - Commons-emblem-legal.svg The Abuse filter has recognized a possible problem with your edit and was asked to leave. Sorry about this but - help again please. Would you prefer that I put {{Helpme}} on my own page (presumably by clicking 'talk' then 'edit' on my page).Sparrowhedgerow (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Sparrowhedgerow: User talk:Pigsonthewing, linked by "Talk to Andy" above, is free for posting by anyone who can post. You tried posting "Hi Andy - I am trying to reach you from my post on village pump copyright - have I got the right place now? Sparrowhedgerow 24 Oct 2021" and a signature on User:Pigsonthewing, an example of posting on others' user pages which is disallowed here for new users like you by Admins via Special:AbuseFilter/245. So no, you had not gotten the right place.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Sparrowhedgerow: In other words please use User talk:Pigsonthewing; not User:Pigsonthewing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Is it okay to use this image?[edit]

So I had earlier started a discussion on whether to use the image I had posted of N8804E, see more about it here:[4]. I contacted the owner of the website Bill Hough. He said that he was on vacation, therefore the slow response. Bill also mentioned that he had lost contact with Bill Weber, the author of the photograph. He allows him to scan negs for his website but he is unsure about the usage of the photograph. I have sent him a mail regarding that if he has any personal info or any contact details on Bill Weber to lend it to me. KlientNo.1 (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Who should be credited?[edit]

"Zebra crossing by C Ford" "Author The original uploader was Secretlondon at English Wikipedia."

Who should be credited? Would it be OK to edit author field to "C Ford, the original uploader was Secretlondon at English Wikipedia" ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Mateusz Konieczny: Hi, and welcome. Please credit "C. Ford" for File:Zebra crossing.jpg and use internal links.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Can URAA protection also apply to works in Ethiopia and Marshall Islands?[edit]

System-search.svgSee also: Template talk:Copyright notes#What should we do due to the Marrakesh Treaty?.

It seems that some users are claiming that Marrakesh VIP Treaty can also let United States have copyright relations with the signatory countries, to which Ethiopia and Marshall Islands (both aren't signatories of Berne convention, nor WTO members) are also two of em. Any ideas? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • To recap my view, the Marrakesh Treaty says signatories agree to waive copyright on Braille works. For URAA protection, a country must agree to respect US copyright, and the US will in turn respect their copyright. This may be via a bilateral treaty or via adherence to the Berne convention or UCC. The Marrakesh treaty is not about agreeing to respect copyright, so does not result in URAA protection. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
https://copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.pdf says "At the time the work was created, at least one author (or rightholder in the case of a sound recording) must have been a national or domiciliary of an eligible source country. An eligible source country is a country, other than the United States, that is a member of the WTO, a member of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, or subject to a presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of that country on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries."
It doesn't matter what the Marrakesh Treaty covers. If it's not the WTO, or the Berne Convention, or subject to a presidential proclamation, it doesn't trigger the URAA. (Presidential proclamations are all listed in Circular 38A).--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Agree with Prosfilaes. The URAA was specific to the requirements in the Berne Convention (and WTO membership requires joining Berne), so it would have to be those specific relations. The URAA is part of U.S. law, and that law states when it applies, and it's not simply any copyright relations with the U.S. but rather those specific treaties. For example, joining the Universal Copyright Convention would get you copyright relations with the U.S., in the sense that their works would be protected in the U.S. from that point, but would not get works restored via the URAA. The UCC existed since the 1950s, but it was only the Berne Convention which forced the U.S. restoration of foreign works which had expired due to no notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • From the above there is agreement that the Marrakesh VIP Treaty is irrelevant to URAA. I suggest we restore Ethiopia and Marshall Islands to {{Copyright notes}} and tweak the wording of that template to read:
    "Per U.S. Circ. 38a., the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no a presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries.".
Aymatth2 (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Aymatth2: I would patch "there is no a presidential proclamation" to remove "a" and read "there is no presidential proclamation", to wit:
"Per U.S. Circ. 38a., the following countries are not participants in the Berne Convention or Universal Copyright Convention and there is no presidential proclamation restoring U.S. copyright protection to works of these countries on the basis of reciprocal treatment of the works of U.S. nationals or domiciliaries.".
  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Symbol support vote.svg Support to polish suggestion by Jeff G., announcing translators should happen, though. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I have made the change to {{Copyright notes/en}}. Not sure how to announce it to translators? Aymatth2 (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Done for zh-hans and zh-hant. others need user talk pages or ping? And can't you just update the French one? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

PD-US-no notice usage[edit]

I'm wondering if some others would mind taking a look at some of the recent uploads made by Lord Such&Such. It seems most of them have been uploaded under a license of {{PD-US-no notice}}, but I'm not sure if that's really the case. The files I looked at all have sources provided, but many of them seem to be to online websites which aren't likely the original sources of the photos. Some of these sites might even be COM:PRS types of sources.

The most recent file uploaded, as an example, was File:Bachelor in Paradise (1961 film). Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer studios. At center in straw hat, actor Bob Hope. At right in black jacket and white pants, director Jack Arnold.jpg and that file is sourced to listal. Listal appears to be a user-generated website for hosting photos, not one that generates much of its own original content. It's copyright statement can be seen here, but that seems to be a standard boilerplate statement. The file's description attributes the photo to MGM studios as a publicity photo, and that's probably the case. There's nothing concrete, however, to show it was published without a notice.

When using the license "PD-ineligible-no notice" is it sufficient to simply show that an image has been used somewhere online without a copyright notice or does some more substantial "proof" need to be provided (e.g. images showing the front and back of a photo or something showing publication by the original copyright holder without notice). Many photos used on websites are often probably used under some kind of fair use claim; so, there are probably no issues for the website per se. Fair use doesn't apply to Commons though per COM:FAIR and it seems that more care should be taken to make sure a license is as correct as it possibly can be. Some websites may fully attribute where a photo it is using actually came from, but just as many provide no such information at all. It seems a bit odd to try and support a "no notice" claim by sourcing to a third-party website that most likely started hosting a photo years after it was originally created. Just for reference, I came across these files from a question asked by Lord Such&Such at en:WP:MCQ#Wizard of Oz image on Wiki Commons about a different image uploaded locally to English Wikipedia and licensed as non-free that they converted a "PD-US-no notice" license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Would usually prefer to have more evidence -- i.e. a photo of the entire front, not a crop, and preferably seeing the back too. For example, File:Girls of the Night (1953 film). Universal Pictures publicity photo. Joyce Holden as Georgia Codray.jpg is marked that way, but an uncropped version here clearly shows a 1952 copyright notice to Universal Pictures. So crops are no good, since they typically crop out the proof of no-notice. Now, any of those files from before 1964 also needed to be renewed -- so if there was no renewal for that photo during 1980, then it became PD in 1981 and is fine. I did not do a search, but relatively few were not renewed, so if there is at least no doubt about publication before 1964, the risk of these is a lot lower. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree with Carl. There is insufficient evidence that these photos were published without a copyright notice. Unfortunately, it looks like Lord Such&Such has made several dozen such uploads. Nosferattus (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Right, on the other hand, most look like they are pre-1964, which means a renewal was needed. I don't see any photos with the film name (just the film itself) or actress name when searching for renewals. The only items for Universal Pictures with a 1952 date are renewals of films. So that one really just needs a switch of license. The others might be the same, but the searches have to be done. Agreed though that the uploads do not seem careful enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Clindberg and Nosferattus: Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that the uploader is too concerned about their uploads or even willing to try and at least clarify why they think the photos are PD. What might be the best approach here? Try and divide the uploads into pre-1964 and 1964 or later and then work from there? The uploader seems to have tried to use “PD-US-no notice” even on Find a Grave photos like File:Memorial plaque for Jack Arnold and Betty (née Riphahn) Arnold, Westwood Memorial Park, Los Angeles, California. Rose Garden.jpg and File:Victor Milner (1893-1972), cinematographer M-G-M, Paramount and Universal studios.jpg , IMDb photos like File:Samuel Sax, producer. Warner Brothers Vitaphone studios.jpg, Rotten Tomatoes photos like File:Lewis Milestone, Russian-American film director (1895-1980).jpg as well as photo sourced to various blogs which seem to be just hosting the photos. They also seem to be adding what appears to be some type of non-free use rationale to the descriptions of each of their uploads, which isn’t needed if the files are PD. Some of the older photos like File:The Big Parade, 1925 film. Director King Vidor. L to R Tom O'Brien, John Gilbert, Karl Dane.jpg and File:Mary Miles Minter. Portrait by Cinematographer James Wong Howe, 1923.jpg may be fine as is, but some like File:Motion Picture Magazine, April 1919. Anita Stewart. Publicity portrait.jpg and File:Actor Anita Stewart on a 10-inch Ceramic Souvenir Plate. Vitagraph Studios publicity item.jpg seem a bit odd licensed as “no notice”. It kind of seems that the uploader tried to use the “no notice” license as much as possible whenever they found a photo somewhere online without a visible copyright notice. — Marchjuly (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Personally, I think they should all be nominated for deletion as a group, and if people want to research specific photos and strike them from the deletion nomination (if they weren't renewed for example), they are free to do that. I think the burden should be on those wanting to keep specific photos, though, as we know at this point that no due diligence was made for these uploads. Nosferattus (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Anything before 1926 would be easy to change to PD-US-expired. Anything 1964 or later should be deleted, unless there actually is enough evidence present for no-notice. Anything in between would be at the discretion of someone who wanted to do copyright searches, or find better online evidence for no-notice, as it sounds like evidence for the claimed tag does not exist, which is the uploader's responsibility. For works 1951 and later, you can search online at www.copyright.gov (since they have 1978 records and later) for renewals. Gets a bit harder for others. Obviously, it helps to find an actual copyright notice since you then know the owners to search for, as the one I did above. If nobody is willing to do the searches, then we probably have to delete.
I so see one Wizard of Oz publicity photo here (a different one) with a 1939 copyright notice for Loew's Inc. When looking for renewals, the only one I see for 1966, which was filed under Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer's name (and cross referenced under Loew's) is a "Wizard of Oz children's writing paper" which is an artwork, not photograph. I don't see anything under those names for 1967 in the photos/artwork renewals. So if we know one was published in 1939, that might be enough. But there were reissues of the movie in 1949, and maybe they found older unpublished publicity photos, and things like that, so it sometimes can be hard to track down. Could nominate them all for deletion in two batches, one 1964+, and one 1926-1963, and see if anyone is able to do the research to remove particular ones from the lists. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Documentary Series: JPL and the Space Age[edit]

JPL has released a documentary series, which would be very good for Commons but I would like to discuss if it would be permissible here, as:

  • There is a copyright notice, which was weird to be honest, but it could be a commissioned project, which unfortunately would exclude all videos here.
  • A two-part documentary about en:Cassini–Huygens was also published, but I don't think it can be included in any matter as it's a NASA-ESA collaboration, which ESA does hold copyrights to.

That's it, but if it's okay to include, I can upload them if it's in the public domain. - 49.147.69.72 03:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

It seems this whole series is copyrighted and non-free since NASA/JPL is not the only producer, but the California Institute of Technology is also credited as producer. The latter is a private research facility and may in fact claim copyright. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Venezuelan government material[edit]

Hi, I haven’t dealt with material from the Venezuelan government before, and I’m wondering if the pictures from this minci.gob.ve post would be eligible for Template:PD-VenezuelaGov. It appears to be the source for File:Guillermo Osorno Nicaragua.jpg, uploaded by a new user who has gone through about a half dozen copyvio images of this politician today, but, I wondered if this one might be ok. Thanks so much for your advice. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Photo was probably made by the US government, not the CTBTO[edit]

"Ivy Mike" atmospheric nuclear test - November 1952 - Flickr - The Official CTBTO Photostream

At present, the author for this photograph is described as the CTBTO, which is simply wrong given the CTBTO did not exist in 1952.

Then, the licence states that per correspondence with the CTBTO, the photo is licenced under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic. This is also likely incorrect. The only people present at Operation Ivy were US government personnel and military and therefore the photo was probably taken during someone's official duties meaning the photo should be copyright free.

This https://www.army.mil/article/47341/the_island_is_missing article attributes the photo to the US Army.

I want to switch it to the normal US government work licence, but given there is also supposedly correspondence regarding it, I'm hesitant to do so.Kylesenior (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Kylesenior. You can try asking about this at COM:ON. VRT volunteers most likely won't be able to discuss any specifics of the email they received for this file, but they might be able to say in general terms whether it addresses the things you've pointed out above or they might be able to change the license to something more appropriate based on the new information you have. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I think it pretty safe to say, since "This image is in the public domain" seems to have been on the Flickr upload and the discussion with VRT seems to have been about the more general Flickr license versus what their website said, the CTBTO never mean to claim copyright on this work and were just lazy about messing with the Flickr license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[]

1904 Portrait[edit]

Hello, I was wondering about the status of this portrait, https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/PORTRAIT-OF-MICHAEL-EMMET-URELL-USWV/1AD8D7312EA2FBE5. Both the painter and the subject died before 1925 so it should be safe. Thanks for the help. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Newport Jazz Festival 1955 - Public Domain[edit]

(Moved this over from help desk.) I stumbled upon this program from the Newport Jazz Festival in 1955. It contains some amazing graphics and photography from Richard Avedon that would be great to have in the public domain. It has a copyright tag but from my (primitive) searches it does not look like copyright was renewed. It also doesn't look like Avedon renewed the copyright to his photographs from this publication either. Would this be in the public domain per 'PD-US-not renewed'? Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Sex Pistols poster ad with Elizabeth II images[edit]

I have concerns about File:WB 77-NMTB promo.jpg. I'm thinking that, despite copyright status, it's a derivative of one of possibly copyrighted photos of Queen Elizabeth II. Furthermore, I can't tell whether either Warner Bros. or Virgin Records made this poster as claimed by either the file page or this source. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[]

File:YorukAliKucukGrup.jpg[edit]

This picture was originally uploaded by Atcooo at English Wikipedia with the claim that they are the copyright holder. I highly doubt this is the case, especially considering that all of their other uploads were deleted on Wikipedia due to missing licensing information. However, there's a good chance that this photo might be old enough to be in public domain. Could someone please double-check this?

Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[]