Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Community portal
Help deskVillage pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
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.

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.

Possible photo of a Luxtrol light control device[edit]

I am considering uploading a photo that I took that shows the control handle for a Luxtrol light control device. The photo was taken in the US. A low-resolution version of the photo is temporarily available for download here. Around the control handle is a scale with marked increments from 0 to probably 100. In the center of the control handle is what is like a logo or nameplate or badge of sorts, with the text "LUXTROL" and "LIGHT CONTROL" and what is likely the manufacturer, "THE SUPERIOR ELECTRIC CO." The question I have is whether there would be copyright issues with uploading a high-resolution version of the photo to Commons.

(As an additional note, there is this ad on a third-party site which shows photos of a similar (or possibly the same model) Luxtrol light control device.) --Gazebo (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the design of the control device is solely utilitarian, and the logo falls short of US COM:TOO, so it should be OK to host. -- King of ♥ 15:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
When doing online research about the mentioned light control device and also related devices, I came across three references to US copyright entries about Luxtrol and light control devices, specifically here and here and here. However, these may not mean anything with regard to the mentioned light control device or scale or logo being under copyright or not. @King of Hearts: Thanks for the feedback. --Gazebo (talk) 05:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Based on your feedback, I have uploaded a high-resolution version of the photo that I originally mentioned. Am I correct in presuming that the mentioned US copyright references are not relevant and that there is no copyright with the depicted control device/indicator scale/logo? --Gazebo (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This looks totally fine to me. -- King of ♥ 12:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Cricketer Ricky Ponting and Rianna Pontin (24079181379).jpg[edit]

Could anyone tell me why this image was deleted on here? I have cropped it and want to use it on the following Wikipedia page:

2006 ICC Awards

It's still being used on Wikipedia, so I presume I can still use mine there as well. However, I want to make sure that I'm uploading my cropped version of this file properly, so I would appreciate knowing why this particular image was deleted on Commons or the appropriate information/protocols pertaining to uploading my image. — 29cwcst (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

This image have never been deleted. So, please, explain what you mean. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

copyright - Photo taken in 1943 and published in it.wikipedia[edit]

I have translated a page about Giancarlo Puecher (an Italian partisan shot in 1943) from it.wikipedia into French. I have loaded a photograph of Puecher into Commons, and I have received a message that it could be deleted as the copyright info is not available. Three questions: - how can a 1943 photograph be subject to copyright? particularly a photograph of historical subject? Probably it's a photo from his ID card... - a photograph published in Wikipedia shouldn't have already been checked upon publishing? - how can I add info about the photo in Commons? I tried, but I couldn'find a way Thank you FRIGIO55 --Frigio55 (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright can last the lifetime of the author and 70 further years in a great many cases (including the entire European Union). For the U.S., items from that era can last 95 years from publication. Sometimes, items that were not actually published until much later than they were created have different terms. So, something from the 1940s can easily still be under copyright. It can last a really, really long time. There are ways copyright can have expired too, so the details on who took the photograph (or was it originally published with no author named), and which country it was first published in, can matter greatly. If works were still under copyright in their source country in (most of the time) 1996, they could have had their U.S. copyright restored to that 95 years. If nothing is known, and no reasonable assumptions can be made, it can be impossible to determine the status. The closest we have is {{PD-old-assumed}}, which is for works with little provenance information created more than 120 years ago, as in most cases those have expired. For File:Giancarlo Puecher.jpg, you did not put a licensing tag on it at all, which means you will automatically get that notice since there is no declaration (via tag) of exactly why it is public domain.
The file at it:File:Giancarlo_Puecher,_prima_medaglia_d'oro_della_resistenza,_caduto_ad_Erba.jpg (which is much higher resolution; if you are going to transfer it's best to transfer the original) uses a license of {{PD-Italy}} there. That license is also valid on Commons, which is for "simple photos". Normally, I don't think that studio portraits count as "simple photos", though if those were just quick portraits for a school directory, maybe they do. If not simple, and the photographer is anonymous, the term lasts 70 years from publication. In that case, if it was a private family photo which was never published until being included in the named source book which is I think from 1965, the 70 year clock for anonymous non-simple photos may have started from that point (as well as the U.S. 95 year clock) and would still be under copyright in both countries. If it was published the same year it was created, then it's probably PD in Italy now, and the U.S. would depend on the exact year it was published. These details unfortunately matter. If the tag on it-wiki is accurate, you can mark the photo with {{PD-Italy}}, which should allow you to remove the speedy deletion tag. If someone else thinks there is not enough evidence for that, they may nominate for deletion (which would be a discussion, and not automatic) at a later time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

COI editor[edit]

Hello, this editor has stated that they work for the town of w:Natick, Massachusetts. I have already cautioned them about uploading copyrighted images. I would suspect most of the recent uploads are copyright violations (the town does own a drone). Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I haven't looked into this case in detail but your choice of subject heading has me a little concerned. Unlike other Wikimedia projects, Commons actively seeks out the "COI editors" as they are the ones who usually own the copyright of files related to the subject they supposedly have a conflict of interest with. Being a COI editor on Commons is normally a positive, although there is often confusion between ownership of the physical document and ownership of the intellectual property right.
If Rames1651 is an employee of the town authorities, I expect that rather than copyright violation it is more likely an issue of either using an incorrect licensing template or lack of evidence of copyright ownership. Both issues are relatively easy to resolve in most cases. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, From Hill To Shore Please help me out here. I work for the Town of Natick. Everything I create for the Town of Natick is a public document and should be availalbe to everyone. This includes the drone photos and the town map that Magnolia677 wouldn't allow to be posted last fall. How do I attribute the uploads? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rames1651 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

On Commons, we are concerned with the legal copyright of media. The copyright usually belongs to the person who authored a photo or image, unless they have a written agreement with the town that explicitly says otherwise. A few questions so we can figure out how to help:
  • Which, if any, of the images did you personally create? You can only use {{Own work}} and apply a CC-BY license if you personally created the image. For example, if you personally operated the drone that took the photographs, or drew the maps. Otherwise, we need to person who created the image to provide their explicit permission.
  • Does the town does have a legal agreement that allows it to acquire the copyright for any of the images? If so, we'll need a legal representative of the town to confirm that and to permit the CC licensing of that work (see COM:OTRS).
Let us know if you have any further questions about anything. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: I, @Rames1651:, created the maps, I flew the drone, I processed all the images. As a municipal employee, everything I create for the town automatically becomes a public document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rames1651 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rames1651: I think this can probably be sorted out to your satisfaction, but the situation is still a bit unclear and a few more precisions may be necessary. The page you linked to, at, includes this statement: "Copyright: Those records created by Massachusetts government agencies and institutions held by the Massachusetts Archives are not copyrighted" [...]. Are you saying that the works you created in the course of your employment for the town are covered by that statement and therefore are not copyrighted? And are you saying that the works you uploaded to Commons were created in the course of your employment for the town? If so, how can you claim a personal copyright on those works and license them on the respective file pages on Commons? On the other hand, you can of course copyright and license works that you created, or creatively modified, on your own personal time outside of your employment, but then they would not be covered by the page. Or, if works you created in the course of your employment for the town are not covered by the statement, then the town would probably own the copyright, in which case an official of the town would need to issue a statement in the name of the town. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Everything a municipal employee creates for the municipality for which he/she/they is/are employed automatically becomes a public document. When I uploaded the files, I don't recall there being an option to declare them public domain. Can I go back change it now? Do I have to delete them and reload? --Rames1651 (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You can edit the description pages of the files to correct mistakes or detail information. No need to delete for that reason. Still, it could be useful to know the reasoning. Do you think your works meet the definition and conditions for the public domain status tag Template:PD-MAGov? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about Will Patton mugshot[edit]

Would it be OK to upload this mugshot of actor Will Patton ( under a PD license such as PD-USGov? StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

No, {{PD-USGov}} applies only to works of the federal government; indeed, the template itself contains "This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision." Some states--like California, Florida and Massachusetts--have elected to consider certain of their government works in the public domain, but South Carolina is not such a state. Эlcobbola talk 18:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: Thanks for telling me. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: Even if it was PD, and even if it was on Commons, it would be in EXTREMELY poor taste to use it in an encyclopedia article, per WP:MUG and Manual of Style/Images. An actor arrested for a DUI is simply tabloid fodder, not encyclopedic. There is no mandate that one must use a crappy image just because it's the only one available: often none is better. --Animalparty (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
@Animalparty: That's honestly what I thought. I think I should've just kept digging for a better image, and I'll just continue to do so. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

File:36 Eastbourne Pier Fire (48781158938).jpg[edit]

This image was uploaded to here from Flickr, from an account called "Jeff & Brian", and tagged with a Creative Commons licence. However, the photo itself is watermarked "Eddie Mitchell" (which it also says in the metadata at the bottom of the page). The Flickr page doesn't exist anymore. But my question is: is it possible that this could be a case of "Jeff & Brian" taking an image they found elsewhere on the internet (such as here?) and passing it off as their own on Flickr? If so, shouldn't this be deleted? Or could it be "Eddie Mitchell" using an alias on Flickr? I'm asking as I recently uploaded a video of the fire from the same Flickr user, but after uploading, I looked at the other media transferred to here from that user (most of the pictures in Category:Eastbourne Pier fire), and started to get a bit suspicious of the images' true sources. If someone could help advise, that would be really appreciated, thank you! Seagull123 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  • The fact that the file has been deleted on Flickr could mean that the copyright holder has contacted Flickr or the Flickr user and asked to have the file deleted from Flickr. The majority of the photos look like typical family photos, so they were probably taken by the Flickr user or possibly by friends and relatives, but maybe the user also uploaded a couple of other pictures from unknown sources.
Where was the photographer standing when File:62 Eaastbourne October 2nd (48781704517).jpg was taken? Was there a place, accessible to the public, where you could take a photo from this angle, or did the photographer need access to a restricted area? Would the construction workers let in a random Flickr user or would such access be limited to newspaper photographers and similar people?
Note that a lot of files in Category:Eastbourne Pier fire need to be renamed: Eaastbourne → Eastbourne. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

These files need help.[edit]

I got notified of these files getting tagged for deletion. Please help, because I believe the deletion tags are not valid.

StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@StrangeloveFan101: Your files are getting deleted because they have logos on them which are all rights reserved. --Red-back spider (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Digital & Analog TV screen quality comparison-1.jpg[edit]

Is this image really in free license?--GZWDer (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The screenshots do not show anything original. They are {{Pd-ineligible}} Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Free screenshots, {{Pd-ineligible}} is the template for it. --Red-back spider (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Are the screenshots actually free? Information about the current or past weather might be uncopyrightable as being factual, though there might be copyright issues depending on how the information was calculated or determined. I am not as sure when it comes to weather information that has been calculated and/or predicted for future days. Others would probably know more than I do about copyright as applied to weather information. Another issue that comes to mind is the visual presentation of the weather information. In looking at the screenshots, there appears to be graphical elements including a background pattern, rectangles with separations between adjacent rectangles, and small images of what appears to be clouds, umbrellas with raindrops, sun, and possibly stars. --Gazebo (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the information itself is not copyrightable, but I would think that the layout and icons and images used would be. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Screenshot from a TV show.[edit]

Hi, Can a screenshot from a TV show be added as evidence that an actor appeared in a TV show? I uploaded one because I believed it was OK after reading up on wikipedia about copyright.

"the use of a limited number of low-resolution screenshots for identification of and critical commentary on the television program and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States."

The image has now been flagged. Is it not allowed or have I just filled in something incorrectly?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adaahh (talk • contribs) 09:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Adaahh: Commons only accept free (as in freedom) media files. Non-free and fair use media is not allowed here. You can upload it to the English Wikipedia if you want, provided there's a fair use rationale, though I'd recommend using the actress' IMDb page instead as your source, since the page shows that she appeared in 2point4children. Thanks, pandakekok9 09:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Is (free) licence of this file right?[edit]

On Commons talk:Threshold of originality i heard that I should ask this question here:

Are they really under en:Threshold of originalityCarn 11:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd say no, because I think for PD-TEXTLOGO to apply the logo needs to be utilitarian. The Spongebob logo is heavily embellished, while the Totally Spies one contains elements other than text. I'd delete them both. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


Can some French speaker look at Template:PD-BMValenciennes it is untranslated PD license, used on couple images. If it is valid than it should be translated to English. --Jarekt (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@AntonierCH, Yann, Nat, Ruthven: Anyone, please? De728631 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
It's similar to the type of template saying for example that the Library of Congress says that it is believed that there is no copyright on a work, but Commons users can't tell exactly why it says so. It is assumed that the institution did a correct job and doesn't lie. There is a similar template for Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France). It's not the ideal type of situation and such templates must not be used when we do know the information and a more explicit template can be used. But they can have a usefulness in particular cases, when no better option exists, no better template can be used, when a reputable source institution affirms that a work in its collection is in the public domain, but doesn't state exactly what the rationale was to determine it, and Commons users can't determine the information from elsewhere, and the affirmation of the institution is believable and there is no reason to doubt it. If we look at files using PD-BMValenciennes, for example there are photographs by Léon Poulain. It is known that they were published in three books from 1890 to 1892, so for their U.S. status the template PD-US-expired can be used. For their status in France, the source institution affirms that they are in the public domain. The life dates are not specified. In this case, the template PD-old-assumed could be used, but it is a weak rationale and not really a better template. Some users may find the affirmation of the institution safer. In a case like this, both PD-old-assumed and PD-BMValenciennes could be used in combination. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. It seems that this is also similar to {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}, so a footnote like "Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined. See Commons:Licensing for more information." would be useful here as well. De728631 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
This template is based on Template:PD-BNF.
Do you want me to translate it in English ?
Arflhn (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, please. It should at least have an English translation. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
+1 --Jarekt (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
One more thing, PD-files have to be PD in both the US and the country they're from, is that right ? Yet the French BNF template states "It can still be under copyright in other countries." is this useful ? If it's PD in both the US and its country then it should be fine ?
Arflhn (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Arflhn, In most cases Non US institutions can not determine US copyrights, so I would not make statements about US copyrights in French template. Ideally we would also have separate PD tag related to US, but very few PD works do. --Jarekt (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Arflhn: There's still something to know before putting too much effort on this template. Is it really necessary? It is used for only a few files. For those few files, was there sufficient research to be certain that no information could be found for the use of a normal template such as PD-old-70 ? -- Asclepias (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I support Asclepias' rationale above. This template might be useful when no other option is available. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

New PD templates for California Gov[edit]

We have at least 3 new templates:

Claiming PD based on some unspecified law of California. Any idea if those are valid and if so we should add information why. --Jarekt (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think these are in line with {{PD-CAGov}} which is valid for government units (including state, county, city, and municipal government agencies). These three are municipal and county agencies and could also be covered by the generic PD-CAGov tag, but as with PD-USGov and its derivatives, it won't hurt to be more specific. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Template:PD-CAGov clearly states which agencies fall under that license (each with a link to some specific law), and those 3 are not mentioned. @Illegitimate Barrister:, could you complete those templates and link them to some specific provision in law that supports your claim that such files are PD? --Jarekt (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Illegitimate Barrister: I think you misunderstood the template. The list of agencies in {{PD-CAGov}} is not an exhaustive list of those agencies whose works are PD, but it is the opposite. Those are "agencies permitted to claim copyright" despite of the general no-copyright provisions for public agencies in California. So the three agencies from LA not being on the list is actually a good thing for our purposes. De728631 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I have made a draft incorporating the relevant information from PD-CAGov into the agency templates. Please see User:De728631/workshop and let me know what you think about it. The line about "Copyrightable Works by the State in the United States:..." was left out on purpose since this is not applicable here. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

De728631, Yes I misunderstood PD-CAGov tag, and User:De728631/workshop looks great as compared to the original templates. Another approach would be to just add {{PD-CAGov}} to those 3 templates and keep them mostly unchanged. --Jarekt (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Thank you. I think though the original PD-CAGov is too generic, which is why I kept the line crediting the local agency. De728631 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Illegitimate Barrister, Jarekt: I have now updated the three templates according to my draft. Please feel free to add more details from PD-CAGov if you like. De728631 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright/Derivative (?) Conundrum on File:RBMK_reactor_hall_n_piping.gif[edit]

Before proposing deletion on File:RBMK_reactor_hall_n_piping.gif, I would like some extra eyes/advice:

File:RBMK_reactor_hall_n_piping.gif is an animated GIF "movie capture" taken from a YouTube video as described in the summary. My initial interest in this was along the lines of "Oh, an animated GIF. Huh, would be great to improve the quality by making it a real video..."

According to the licensing tag, this image is CC-BY-SA-4.0 -- which is fine, but because it's a screencap/vidcap of the YouTube video, it would appear to be a COM:DW...? I couldn't determine the licensing of the YouTube video and I didn't want to make (too many) assumptions... (I did search through all of the licensing policies and couldn't find any guidance on "What to do when the license is there but appears to be impossible....")

Thoughts? :)

Thanks in advance!

Jewell D D (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

      1. The File in Question

RBMK reactor hall n piping.gif

@Jewell D D: According to the user's userpage, they did create the original YouTube video. If that is the case, they are free to upload that GIF here with a different license than the video, however, we would prefer if they would apply the license to the video as well as proof that they actually created it. @Tadpolefarm:.
(On an separate note, it is pretty common for newer users to upload files they have no rights to as CC and {{Own work}}. We are generally quick to assume that such a file is a copyright violation if it's been published on the internet before its upload here.) – BMacZero (🗩) 19:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@BMacZero: Good points, and yeah, I'm guilty of making the very assumption you described ... :| ... I didn't really COM:AGF. Thank you!
@Jewell D D: It's often a correct assumption; I didn't mean to say such issues shouldn't be raised. The "Good faith and copyright" section applies here. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tadpolefarm: No worries! All good, sorry for assuming that something negative was going on. Since you're the original creator, do you have maybe the original video file? I really liked the animation, I just wanted to improve the quality by putting it into a VP9/WebM in <as high of a resolution as possible>. I'm happy to do the reencoding work or even the re-rendering if needed. Maybe you could message me on my talk page and let me know if you have the original source? :) Jewell D D (talk)

The animated GIF is my work and uploaded to commons by me. Please don't delete it. I generated the GIF from the base 3D modelling used in making the Youtube video Chernobyl diasaster which was also my own work. – tadpolefarm (🗩) 23:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


I was looking at Template:PD-newspaper vs. Template:PD-newspaper-assumed and they look quite similar. May be we should merge them. --Jarekt (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Too different. Merging a "known" notion with a "known or assumed" notion would, in fact, mean elimating the template PD-newspaper, to the benefit of the template PD-newspaper-assumed and making that template even more vague by eliminating the condition of 120/70 years, to cover other cases. But, from past discussions about PD-old-assumed, Commons would possibly not want an "assumed" type of template with a condition other than 120/70 years. -- Asclepias (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what makes this a legitimate license tag. This seems a synonym for {{PD}}, while the other seems the same as {{PD-old-assumed}}, though maybe with a couple more details. The fact something is in a newspaper doesn't change its copyright term. The assumed one... maybe OK, but I'd be inclined to delete this one. Not sure it has many legitimate usages. It's used on File:Winston Churchill Marlborough Punch 1938.png for a drawing by a British artist who died in 1976, and File:Ildefonso Velásquez - 01 diciembre 1962.jpg for a non-anonymous (can see credit to a Victor Ramirez in the article) Mexican photo from 1962, neither of which are PD. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pinging Aymatth2. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I have commented at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-newspaper. A newspaper and an article or illustration in a newspaper are usually covered by separate clauses in the copyright law. Usually the term of the article is longer than that of the newspaper, but not always. This is for when we know for sure the newspaper and the articles are PD. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Files in the category Mr. Bean[edit]

For the logo depicted in File:Mr. Bean (animated TV series) logo.svg, the license is given as {{PD-textlogo}} + {{Trademark}}. However, there is the question as to whether the logo is below the US threshold of originality. From what I understand, and from what is said in Wikipedia, the animated Mr. Bean series originated outside the US, so there might also be the question as to the threshold of originality in other countries.

Another image in the Mr. Bean category is File:Mr Bean in Serbian (4333769801).jpg. According to Commons, Serbia has freedom of panorama but Bosnia and Herzegovina does not.

The File:Bean wikiworld.png image claims to incorporate text from the Rowan Atkinson and Mr. Bean Wikipedia articles. Though the text of Wikipedia articles is licensed, at minimum, under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License, there may be the question of properly attributing the article and identifying the license. A similar issue may apply to the image File:Bean wikiworld he.PNG. --Gazebo (talk) 08:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Logo is probably fine for the U.S. -- unsure that bordering shape is enough for copyright. UK, much less likely, if it originated there. The FoP one looks to be an issue. The cartoon seems fine -- the articles are credited, and the given license is accurate. Well, it could be mentioned that the quoted text is also licensed GFDL. Technically though, you only need to mention one since that is the one being used -- that is the idea of dual-licensing. So I don't see a problem there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


After looking at this DR, I really want to know about if photos are considered as "official material" or not. The license description is so vague. -- 16:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright - Map published in the Geographical Review (US)[edit]

I was wondering if a map designed by and published in 1942 in The Geographical Review (The American Geographical Society) is still under copyright. There is no copyright notice as such, just "Geogr. Review, Apr. 1942" showing inside the frame of the map. Thanks.--Lubiesque (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lubiesque: According to the hirtle chart, if it is published in the U.S. without a copyright notice, then it is public domain and its Commons copyright tag is {{PD-US-no notice}} --Red-back spider (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Even if there is no copyright notice on the map itself, it probably would have been covered by a copyright notice for the whole magazine. The concordance of periodical renewals shows that at least some issues of Geographical Review from 1938 onward had their copyrights renewed, which strongly suggests that they were published with copyright notice. Toohool (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Yup. You can then go look for the renewal of that actual issue -- there are links to all the renewal volumes here. A 1942 work would have needed to be renewed in either 1969 or 1970; it shows up in 1969 here, renewal number R459138 for the April 1942 issue. So it will become PD in 2038. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Should this DR be closed?[edit]

Should this file, according to the DR (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stanley Kubrick in Dr. Strangelove Trailer (4).jpg), be kept or deleted? It honestly seems like there's more reason to keep it than to not. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It will be closed in due course. Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: OK. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


Question whether it is acceptable to upload the Daisie App Logo ~ to be used in the Maisie Williams English Wikipedia article

Hi I am editing the article on Maisie Williams (on Wikipedia), who apart from being an actress has, also developed and launched a social media app for creators called Daisie, which had over 130,000 users in its first year in 2019. Would it be acceptable to upload non free image of the Daisie logo here with the intention of placing the logo image of her app on her article in the relevant section, to help re-enforce that is a real endeavour. I have not created a separate Wikipedia article for the app, as it is early days and I never feel confident to start articles. The Daisie logo can be viewed here @ Bodney (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be a UK startup, so the custom handwritten "DAI" might be above the threshold of originality in the UK. However, this logo is certainly uncopyrightable in the US, so you can upload it to the English Wikipedia under Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. -- King of ♥ 06:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Question about a hand-drawn pie chart (threshold of originality)[edit]

I'm working on an article at the English Wikipedia about a defunct independent record label, and looking for free images to illustrate it. This hand-drawn pie chart appears in a few sources about the subject and would be nice to include as an example of the label's humorous early advertisements, but I'm uncertain whether it passes the threshold of originality for copyright. Though it's basically just a circle and and some words, I think the content of the words might make the whole thing sufficiently original enough to qualify for copyright protection. I don't have a great deal of experience making these determinations and would appreciate input from anyone who does. Unless others think that it doesn't pass the threshold of originality, I'm going to err on the side of the precautionary principle and not upload it. Thanks in advance. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The pie chart itself if you delete the words would be OK. But yes I think the inclusion of the words makes it copyrightable -- a "selection and arrangement" of otherwise uncopyrightable elements can still hold a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

US & UK copyright tags for a 1923 postcard[edit]

File:1923 - East Knoyle postcard - front.jpg was published sometime between 1920 (when the East Knoyle War Memorial which it pictures was unveiled), and 1923 (when the back was postmarked). The postcard credits the photo to a R. Wilkinson & Co. Could someone please suggest the appropriate US and UK copyright tags for it? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

{{PD-old-70-1923}} is an easy option. As the credit is to a company, the copyright expired 70 years after publication or earlier. -- (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
You mean {{PD-anon-expired}}. PD-old variants are for when there is a known human author, not for anonymous works. "R Wilkinson & Co" is a corporate credit, and may just be a printing company as well, so I think that is anonymous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I said 'easy' because of the possible debate about whether 'corporate' is the same as anonymous, which literally it isn't. -- (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)