Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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


Benny Hill Image[edit]

Can I use this picture for Benny Hill's Wikipedia page? Currently his photo is of a wax statue. Here is an actual photo. https://nibblesscribblesandquibbles.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/benny-hill-copy.jpg Stapmoshun (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You could upload this locally at the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale: en:Template:Non-free use rationale biog. For the licensing, you would then select "Historically significant fair use". Anyhow, please don't upload it at Commons. The photo can be found all over the web and it looks recent enough to by copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this should not be uploaded to Commons. For the 'fair use' rules on English Wikipedia please see w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. I suspect that this image would not pass the no free equivalent criterion, as the current free image in the article is a reasonably good likeness. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the Commons image is more that sufficient for primary identification purposes per en:WP:FREER which is why I've tagged the non-free uploaded locally to Wikipedia for speedy deletion per en:WP:F7. There may actually be other PD/free images of Hill floating around somewhere as well, including some never marked with a copyright notice or whose copyright wasn't renewed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
welcome to the free hypocrisy, where "free" photos of wax sculptures prevent higher quality photos of dead people. "There may actually be other PD/free images of Hill floating around somewhere" = dream on. produce it, or stop the empty speculation. it is an elevation of ideology over results. how many times are you going to harm the quality of the encyclopedia to make a philosophical point? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
If you disagree with the claim of replaceable fair use added to the local non-free file, you can always dispute the template if you like. Just follow the instructions in the CSD template added to the file explain how deleting the image is going to be harmful to the encyclopedia. Perhaps the admin reviewing the tag will decide that more discussion is needed and move things to en:WP:FFD. Anyway, if you're editing on Commons, you won't need to create a new account to edit on Wikipedia; you can just use the same one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
maybe we need to delete the bizarre image of a wax sculpture. doubt the release from the wax sculptor. i have no confidence in english NFCC determinations, it is a triumph of ideology over the "sum of all knowledge", how it could be consider encyclopedic is farcical, but that is not on their check-list. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
If you feel the wax sculpture photo needs to go, tag it accordingly or start a DR. If you feel Wikipedia's policy on non-free content use needs to be revised, start a discussion at en:WT:NFCC or en:WP:VPP. Perhaps you can make a convincing case that the "checklist" you refer to needs to be changed for the better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
let all the PRP deletionists gather around, it is all about justifying the seat of the pants not standard of practice. if you have confidence in the english process that produced the checklist, you change it. convincing arguments have nothing to do with it. " that the goal was to effectively discourage the use of any fair-use media by making it impractical and difficult to justify doing so even where the file in question easily met the criteria" (i.e. triumph of rhetoric over substance) Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Stapmoshun, Clindberg, Marchjuly: It's quite possible [1] has expired Crown copyright. The problem is I can't find confirmation it is in fact a government work. If it is, it can be uploaded as {{PD-UKGov}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys. Sorry if I've started quite a ruckus or an argument on here. I'm still new to editing Wikipedia and such, but I have a strong feeling against having a wax statue being Benny Hill's image on his article here. I see the image that Marchjuly has put here, and it is really a terrific image. I wish there was a speedy way to see whether a copyright status on an image has expired or not, it's really quite problematic trying to avoid any trouble. Thanks everyone, also, I was a little afraid when I got those warnings on the file I had uploaded so I deleted it. Stapmoshun (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Stapmoshun: what image are you referring to? If you meant the link I just gave (but I'm not Marchjuly), you can try yourself to figure out the origin of the image. https://images.google.com/ might help. (I found mostly pinterest crap, but maybe I overlooked something) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: WHOOPS, sorry 'bout the miscredit there. You're right, I'm talking about the image YOU put up, not Marchjuly. Haha, sorry about that. I'll give the reverse image lookup from Google a try, and see if it is eligible for the {{PD-UKGov}} you mentioned. One question, if you know the answer to this: this UK exception, does it apply only to the Wikipedia editors who live in the UK, or is it referring to the subjects of the picture, in this case Benny Hill, it would apply because he's English? Thanks a lot. Stapmoshun (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
the fact you have to use google image in the perverse interaction of english and commons deletions, with no clear history of which image got deleted where why, is instructive. it is all about the automated process, and not about tracking and accounting for admin action. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Stapmoshun: probably better ignore Slowking4 here.. Your question about {{PD-UKGov}}: it applies to works with expired copyright from the UK government. For photographs, it applies to those taken prior to 1 June 1957. It applies worldwide. The subjects don't matter, if the UK government takes photos of Americans or Swedes nothing changes. Since Benny Hill was in the British army and looks quite young on the photo, it seems likely the photo was taken by an army photographer. But it might have been taken by a friend or family member. If very similar photos exist of other people in the British army, that would likely be sufficient proof as well. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Adding link to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benny Hill WWII.jpg for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

CC LICENSING[edit]

FULL DISCLOSURE-----good afternoon, i work for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and i had a question regarding the licenses that are required to upload photos onto Wikimedia Commons. i understand all media files need to be under a creative commons license that allows the free use of the photo. However i have run into trouble with the legal department in regards to the "remixing, editing, transforming" portion of the license. They are perfectly ok with the sharing of the photos across the various sister sites of Wikimedia however the last part is what is causing a concern. I looked at the creative commons website and noticed they have several licenses that allows the image to be shared freely but with some restrictions, i.e. remixing, editing,transforming. they include--- Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 CC BY-ND'& Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 CC BY-NC-ND. In the Upload Wizard these licenses are not available to select, is it safe to say that is due to the fact Wikimedia commons does not accept these license at all or am i able to add certain restrictions to the photos.

The purpose of this is we have updated photos of the new CEO ans building and want to ensure that the photos that are being used on WIkipedia articles are updated and correct and not outdated. thank you all for your time, my email is enabled so feel free to reach out. Thank you all again DaP87 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi DaP87. Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept any free licenses which place restrictions on either commercial or derivative use per Commons:Licensing. You can see which CC licenses Commons accepts at Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags.
In addition, although this is not really so much an issue with respect to Commons, you need to carefully read en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and en:Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure if you intend to edit anything about your employer found on English Wikipedia on behalf of your employer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[Note: Posted edit by Marchjuly to strikethrough "free" per discussion below. -- 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)]
@DaP87: you can license them as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, that way derivatives are allowed but are required to be licensed with the same Creative Commons license. I don't know why exactly you want BY-NC-ND, if the goal is to stop 4chan from drawing silly moustaches on the face of your CEO the only solution is not to publish the photos, anywhere. No license or copyright restrictions will help against that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
you could also use a hybrid license like this example User:Fir0002/credits. -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Marchjuly and Alexis jazz in regards to the restrictions I feel they are worried that someone might edit the photo completely, and I understand that the only way to avoid that would be to not publish at all. I just wanted to make sure I explored every possible option out there before reporting back. In regards to editing pages directly that is not something I intended to do. I was going to use the Template:Request edit and propose some changes i.e. new updated photo. Also understanding that my request might not go through. I want to make sure I do everything correctly, thank you both for the insight and thank you Slowking4 § for the email. happy editing!! DaP87 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Slowking4, please stop recommending Fir0002's example licence template. It doesn't achieve what this user wants, and makes it more likely the image is unusable legally outside of Wikipedia, thus making it more likely to be used illegally. We should be encouraging users to embrace free content, not reminding anyone of the underhand tricks used by folk who never got free content, and ultimately left the project because of that. -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
i will advise GLAMs on all their options. it does exactly what they want: NC + wikipedia only, but it is too bizarre for many to believe. no incidents of illegal reuse, rather the copyfraud is on the CC-BY-SA. it is not underhanded, Fir200 was very forthright about what he was doing; it is the community here that permits licenses that are an assault on free culture. photographers leave not because they "do not get it", but because the toxic culture does not collaborate with content creators. if it is so underhanded, close the loophole. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@DaP87: do not follow Slowking4's advice. That license will cause you more problems than it'll solve. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@DaP87: If you upload content to Commons, even under the license Slowking4 is suggesting, it's going to be assumed that you are pretty much OK with others downloading and using the content. You can set terms that you expect others to comply with by licensing the content in a certain way, but that's about all you can do when you upload the file. Commons is not going to track down everyone who downloads the content and make sure they're abiding by the terms of its license; you or your company is going to have to do that and you pretty much only going to be able to do that after they've download it and used it in someway. Commons/Wikipedia might be able to police itself so to speak and remove any further re-uploads of your content which violate its licensing policy or the license you've added to the file; it's not, however, going to go searching for violations out in the real world or on other websites. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
" doesn't accept any free licenses which place restrictions on either commercial or derivative use " - Marchjuly

By definition this is incorrect, if have those restrictions it is not free.

You should read this: [2]

The only CC licenses that are free are cc-by and cc-by-sa only, see:[3] also to understand.

Double licenses also allow commercial uses and derivative work, different rules, but they allow.

All our images are free was defined here Commons:Licensing, but the only cc licenses accepted to be free was not defined by us, but for something bigger then us. The correct sentence would be:

"Wikimedia Commons only accepts free licenses, for that reason licenses with restrictions on either commercial or derivative are not accepted by themselves."

Peace -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I've corrected my original post accordingly. Thank you for catching that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@DaP87: If it would help you to persuade your colleagues, we can give you many examples of other bodies, in fields of work related to yours, who have made images available under an open licence - for example, Carl Zeiss Microscopy and the Wellcome Trust. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Using someone else's image that they've given me permission to use[edit]

I uploaded an image, Main-logo-2018hq.png, that a collaborator of mine created and that they have given me permission to use. I included this and the creator's name in my upload form. But I just got a message that Wikipedia suspects I've violated a copyright. How do I prove that I have permission to publish this image?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ZPonterio (talk • contribs) 14:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey ZPonterio. Normally, the creator would need to give legal permission to license the image for free public use, and not just for use on this site. However, in this instance the logo consists only of text and geometric shapes, and so falls below the threshold for originality in the United States. I have updated the file information to reflect this. GMGtalk 14:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Not out of copyright after all?[edit]

Moved from Commons:Help desk —-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 05:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

File:John Doubleday with the Portland Vase.jpg dates from around 1845, but per a few discussions (most notably at FAC), it seems that it may still be under copyright in the United States (but not in the UK, its country of origin), as the earliest definitive publication is from 1989.

First question: Is that analysis correct?

Second question: If yes, what is the next step? If the file has to be deleted from Commons, how does one do that while preserving the image on Wikipedia (which, as the only known photograph of Doubleday, will go under a fair use tag)? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Usernameunique,
Just a quick answer:
I don't know how they get to this, but:
Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad
Date of Publication Conditions Copyright Term in the United States
Before 1923 None In the public domain
Their link copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain
So it's under a public domain.


And would be better for the next time you use Village pump/Copyright to specifically discussions about licenses, and this should be the our priority to discuss about copyright status around a photo, not at WP, we have more people dealing with copyright of photos and other medias, as a result we could have a more accurate answer and less time spent.
You can try for this case the Village Pump/Copyright, but this is very straight forward to me - it's at Public Domain, period.
If you want can change the actual license to {{PD-1923}} + {{PD-UK-unknown}} (Hirtle chart yes, we do have this chart here with the correct template) + (Copyright tags#United Kingdom)
Not necessary.
-
Just to you know, at 1989 this image could be already at public domain, let's make some math, okay?
1989-70= 1919
So, if the author died until 1919 this image would be under public domain
1919-1845 = 74, so after the photo the author could leave 74 years more that at 1989 the image stills under PD.
Let me include a 20 years to the photographer, a very young and bold photographer. This guy should have died at 95 years old to this picture not be under a free license at 1989.
Being a PD photo, we don't need (in some countries) to attribute the author. That could be a reason to not have the author of the photo at the book.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 05:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Rodrigo.Argenton, from what I could gather of what Nikkimaria and Stefan2 were suggesting, this photo would be in the public domain in the UK (due to life+70), but was placed under copyright in the US by the 1989 publication. Do you disagree with this? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The Mathematics that I did was to say to you that the publication at 1989 do not matters, the image was already at public domain.
Or this dude is a Methuselah


Why didn't you copy the whole thread from Help Desk?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 05:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
{{PD-1923}} requires pre-1923 publication, which is not known to have happened in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
see unpublished, "Other works: 120 years from creation" i find this misuse of the publication rules tenditious. worse than Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices/2014#Hermann Herzog, and i do not think you have a consensus here. as a threshold matter, we are not going to search the publication of each old photograph: it is an impossible standard, that no institution would implement as a standard of practice. rather we will spend our time investigating those cases with a real risk of being in copyright in the US, such as orphans with no renewals.
"photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1948); or
A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1948)" Template:PD-UK-unknown Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Works this old are complex and hairy; they've generally fell into the common law public domain, even if there's complexities with the black letter law. Given that the photographer is unknown, I'd say it wasn't "published" in a legal sense in 1989; that could only have been done with permission of the copyright holder, who was unknown. Which would have meant that it certainly fell into the public domain in the US in 2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the license tag, Slowking4. Is another tag, i.e., a US-specific one, needed as well? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
well you could change PD-1923 to PD-US, but it is either publication pre-1923 or creation over 120 years ago. does not matter. template verbiage does not reflect hirtle \o/ we have literally hundreds of thousands of berne images here without a US license. look forward to this person clearing that backlog, since they seem to want to make an issue of it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Siri reply[edit]

Siri answers 'what is the gender of an angel?'.jpg

Please see File:Siri answers 'what is the gender of an angel?'.jpg. Do I need to obscure the "starburst" icon that precedes the word "knowledge"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it's Commons:De minimis, although it's a subjective area. Category:Siri is a mountain in Pakistan, by the way. --ghouston (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Common question[edit]

This is probably a common question. Sorry if I ask yet again. But, is a scan of a really old document copyrighted? Or, is it in the public domain like the original document? Can I upload a scan of an old document made by somebody else without asking permission? Thanks. SharkD  Talk  01:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The image is from here. The document itself is from 1913. SharkD  Talk  02:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
If the original document is public domain and the scan is a simple mechanical reproduction of it then the scan is also public domain, see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Smithsonian Libraries seems to be the ultimate source of the images. Can I upload the whole PDF? How do I display only one page of a PDF? SharkD  Talk  03:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
You can upload the whole PDF (assuming that it is public domain), but if you want individual images for use on Wikipedia then these will need to be separated. You could probably do this with a PDF editor, but I would just copy-and-paste each image into an image editor: display the image on your computer, copy the displayed image (Alt-PrintScreen on Windows), paste it into an image editor such as Microsoft Paint, then crop and save the image. It helps to have big screen as you get a higher-resolution result. This is crude but it works. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe I will request single page selection as a new MediaWiki feature. SharkD  Talk  04:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
might want to go to internet archive https://archive.org/details/AtlasMunsellcol00Muns, and upload to commons as multipage book on commons, IAuploader,[4] - oops, there you go File:Atlas of the Munsell color system.djvu. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
For more suggestions of how to extract images from PDF files (including how to do it losslessly), see Commons:Extracting images from PDF. --bjh21 (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Make a new copyright tag[edit]

Can someone make a new copyright tag on the Seychelles News Agency? The licences are shown on here. The logo itself is PD-text. The pictures on the website are mainly used used to illustrate articles about Seychelles. Thanks.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I have uploaded several images from this source. As well are pictures of the Seychelles it is a useful source of portraits of visiting dignitaries. The applicable licence is shown under each photograph on this site. No new tags are needed, use the following:
  • Copyright All Rights Reserved / Copy, distribute, and display the copyrighted work - only if given permission by the author or agency. – Not acceptable on Wikimedia commons
  • Creative Commons 4.0
    • Attribution CC BY - use {{Cc-by-4.0}}
    • Attribution-ShareAlike CC BY-SA - use {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}
    • Attribution-NoDerivs CC BY-ND – Not acceptable on Wikimedia commons
    • Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC – Not acceptable on Wikimedia commons
    • Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND – Not acceptable on Wikimedia commons
Please also copy the name of the photographer and tag uploads with {{LicenseReview}} to allow the licence to be recorded, in case it changes on the website.
Verbcatcher (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I checked the website. I agree with Verbcatcher. Great opportunity to get content from en:Seychelles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Canadian field naturalist[edit]

Just verifying, this published by the Canadian field naturalist in 1998 is now open access, right? All the images used are okay for upload under CC-BY 4.0? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think so? Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I think you are confusing an open access journal and a free licence. Open access journals do not charge to read the papers published in them. Some of them may use some sort of a free licence. There are many that use non-free licences, or even do not claim any licence simply allowing allowing people to read those articles at this time. I looked at the paper and found no mention of any licencing terms and also was unable to find such on the website itself. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 18:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Image of commemorative coin from US Mint fair use?[edit]

I would like to add images of the obverse and reverse images of the coin in question for the entry on the Booker T. Washington Memorial half dollar, but I'm having a hard time figuring out if the images on the US Mint website are fair use.

EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

EponineBunnyKickQueen, being legal U.S. tender and authorized in public law, I would assume that {{PD-USGov-money}} would apply. Even if it didn't, however, Commons does not accept fair use material. Huntster (t @ c) 21:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
No, PD-USGov licenses apply to works of the Federal government itself. They do not apply when a third-party transfers copyright to the federal government, as is the case with certain commemorative coins (see Commons:Currency#United_States and usmint.gov) and indeed with this coin, whose author is Isaac Scott Hathaway, not a federal employee. There are also two copyrights: 1) the coin itself and 2) the photo thereof. Even if the coin were free (it isn't, at least by virtue of authorship - publication date and compliance with formalities may be relevant), the photograph isn't free (the US Mint has a unique structure, like the US Post Office, which is why you see "© 2018 United States Mint All Rights Reserved" on its page; you do not see such a notice on "typical" federal sites.) Эlcobbola talk 21:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Huntster and elcobbola. I've entered a photo request for the coin. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Elcobbola, as that's the case, I'd guess that the U.S. coin categories are probably packed with violations. This little corner of copyright is horribly tangled. Huntster (t @ c) 10:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Elcobbola, I'm unaware of any special exemption of PD-USGov to the US Mint. They are part of the Treasury Department, completely unlike the US Post Office. They most certainly have trademarks, and there are some special insignia-type laws around some of their stuff, but in general I don't believe their stuff is copyrighted (if done by employees, which are federal employees). They can own copyrights transferred to them, true, and many coin designs are just licensed, which may explain the copyright notice on their web page -- but at no point does their terms of use page claim copyrights over their own works. However, if that coin was put out in 1946, it would have also needed a copyright notice and, if it had that (doesn't look like it), a renewal. If the coin is PD due to lack of notice and/or renewal, and the photo was taken by a US Mint employee, it should be fine. The only problem I can think of is if there was a (published and renewed) original that the coin design is still derivative of. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand this comment. I never said the US Mint gets a "special exemption." I never said the US Mint "claim[s] copyright over their own works." I made no comment about trademarks. I explicitly noted "publication date and compliance with formalities may be relevant." Unique structure could perhaps have been better phrased as practice/warrant/circumstance--they deal commonly in works created non-federal entities and thus no work should be assumed to be federal by its mere appearance on a US Mint site ceteris paribus (thus the need to disclaim when other federal sites do not, and the mint agrees with me - "you should not assume anything on this Web site is necessarily in the public domain.") I very clearly began my comment with "PD-USGov licenses apply to works of the Federal government itself", which does not consider and would not change by structure; I, again, have no idea what you think you are responding to. Эlcobbola talk 19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You were comparing them to the US Post Office, who does own the copyright to works done by their employees, and the Mint, which does not -- I guess that was my immediate reaction. You also stated that the photograph portion of the copyright would also not be free, but presuming that was done by a mint employee, the photo should be PD-USGov. You explicitly said the photograph isn't free and gave as a reason the mint was like the post office in that regard, but there is no valid comparison on that score, I don't think. The only issue would be the copyright on the original design by Hathaway, which is indeed a potential issue, but that would appear to have not complied with formalities. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, like the post office in that "they deal commonly in works created non-federal entities and thus no work should be assumed to be federal by its mere appearance on [their] site". The US Mint says "you should not assume anything on this Web site is necessarily in the public domain" and has a general "All Rights Reserved" notice. Unless you have evidence the photo was taken by a federal employee, it is not free by our standards. Эlcobbola talk 20:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, I would just disagree on that point then. I would have no problem making an assumption that the basic photos were done by their employees, and are OK. I would need some evidence that there was some special commission that would make them copyrightable. AS the notes to the law says, it can be assumed that, where a Government agency commissions a work for its own use merely as an alternative to having one of its own employees prepare the work, the right to secure a private copyright would be withheld. Photos like that would fall under that type of work, if not actually done by employees. The coin design would be where any issues could come in, but doubt that is a problem in this case due to formalities. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Colorization[edit]

It would be helpful to have additional input on this question at the Help Desk. Additionally, if allowed, should we consider creating a template specifically for colorization of public domain black and white images? GMGtalk 16:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The U.S. Copyright Office was reluctant to have any copyrights based on color choice. When it came to colorizing an entire film though, a court did rule that was copyrightable, but I believe they said they would not register a colorization copyright on just a few frames (which would presumably also mean a single image). However, I do wonder if something like that got into a court case -- judges may decide differently, depending on how it was done. Anything done by algorithm should not be a problem, but if done by hand, it would depend on country, and possibly be quite variable. I would probably tend to just upload the original black and white, unless we also have a license for the colorization. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Intel free press[edit]

Should all of these images be listed for deletion? They're just copies of images from news posts. Intel obviously doesn't hold the copyright to them all. Product shots, photos of screens, adverts etc.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The first one I looked at appears ok. File:Rhino home (14981417661).jpg is soured to https://www.flickr.com/photos/54450095@N05/14981417661, where it is licensed as CC BY-SA 2.0 (click on 'Some rights reserved'). The Flickr account is Intel Free Press, which appears to be controlled by Intel Corporation. This is supported by a link to the 'Intel Free Press' page at intel.com. Can you identify any problematic files? Verbcatcher (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Lots of official product images, as part of news stories..
  1. File:Logitech Wireless Touch Keyboard K400.jpg
  2. File:Asus UX 31 Ultrabook PC.jpg
  3. File:IHome iDM12 Bluetooth Portlable Speaker System.jpg
  4. File:CM Storm Inferno Gaming Mouse.jpg.

--BevinKacon (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

These might be allowable as 'utilitarian objects' see COM:UA. I think we have to trust Intel's claim to ownership of the copyrights of these photographs, the issue is whether there are applicable copyrights on the pictured objects. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about pic from Open-i service of the National Library of Medicine[edit]

Hello, am I permitted to upload that pic to WIKIMEDIA COMMONS?? You can see that there is a link in this page to a license. It's seems that they allow to share, even for commercial purposes, but I want to be sure. Thank you, מתן י (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the licence specified is allowed on Commons as Template:Cc-by-3.0. Thincat (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
But please when you uploading the file add {{LicenseReview}} below the license. -- Geagea (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

An American goes to Sweden..[edit]

I got this question from another user and it left me slightly puzzled.

An American illustrator (1850-1951) creates some illustrations for a Swedish book by a Swedish book author (1858-1940) that was published in 1907. It is unknown if the illustrations were a work for hire, for the sake of argument, let's assume they weren't.

US copyright has expired (PD-1923), no question about that. The copyright for the text expired in 1940+71=2011. No question. The issue is the illustrator. Died in 1951, so if they had been Swedish the illustrations would clearly expire in 1951+71=2022. But they weren't, it was an American. But the book was Swedish.

Now, does Commons consider the source country to be Sweden? Would this Swedish copyright, if it exists, even be enforceable for the American heirs of the illustrator? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Country of origin is country of first publication, so that would be Sweden. Authors could absolutely publish works in other countries to get better/different protection. They would not be subject to the URAA (unless the author actually was living in Sweden), but that is moot here. Sweden would use 70pma, and any country using the rule of the shorter term would compare against Sweden's term. Work for hire is also moot. The illustrations can be uploaded to en-wiki as PD-1923, but not to Commons until 2022. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Clindberg: thanks! Just out of curiosity: if they had been work for hire, would the copyright for the illustrations have expired in 2011? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Sweden has any different terms for work for hire do they? In general for the EU, it goes by the human author's lifetime, regardless of who owns the copyright. The text expired in 2011, and the illustrations will expire in 2022. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

can these images be uploaded to the commons?[edit]

location of images:

By my reckoning these five illustrations are in public domain, but I would really appreciate a person knowledgeable in copyright confirming this. I cannot find a death date for Ms. Cohen.

The images are by illustrator Ellen Gertrude Cohen, created in 1891 and appear to be published in Britain in that year, but it is unclear of the publication. They are on a site that implies copyright, but they are not marked. May I upload all five images to the commons? If so, which tag? "in public domain in U.S."?

Thanks for taking a look. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@WomenArtistUpdates: COM:WORSTCASE being an actually useful essay? Who knew! Try {{PD-old-assumed}} combined with {{PD-1923}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
freebmd gives a match for an Ellen Gertrude Cohen as born in December 1860 -- seems more likely than 1846. There is an erroneous birth date of 1876 out there as well. There are a number of death records for an Ellen Cohen, but hard to figure which is the correct one, if any of those are. There was one in 1899 and another in 1933, which would be the only real possibilities in the search results, though many records are missing and it's possible she died overseas anyways (or married and changed her name). This page claims it is a portrait by her done in 1934, but no idea if that date is correct -- most other "hits" stop in the early 1900s. Country of origin would be the UK, as that was a London newspaper or magazine. They are definitely PD in the US, as {{PD-1923}} (published more than 95 years ago). The UK is on the edge -- they are OK only if she died more than 70 years ago. That is likely for someone who was born in 1860, though not definite. The only tag you can use is {{PD-old-70}}, or maybe {{PD-old-assumed}}, and hope that is correct. There is a combined {{PD-old-70-1923}} tag. The question is if that is a significant doubt, or just an unlikely theoretical doubt, around the COM:PRP policy. It is not impossible that someone could nominate that for deletion, and I'm not sure how that would end up (would be a consensus call). We normally don't delete stuff more than 120 years old with unknown authors, but in this case, it is a known author. But may be worth it to upload, and see what people think. I would additionally use the {{PD-Art}} tag, since the source site is claiming copyright on the digital reproduction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thank you Alexis Jazz and Clindberg! Here's the article Ellen Gertrude Cohen. Best WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

A question of copyright.[edit]

Greetings. I would like to upload some historical content related to the Rhodesian regime, such as the badges of the of the Rhodesian Air Force. Everything prior to the UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) would naturally fall under British copyright law as Rhodesia was a British colony. But after UDI, Rhodesia was considered an illegal regime by the UK, the United Nations, and practically every country on the planet save one or two. And it was not a signatory to any international treaties, least of all any regarding copyright issues. So I am unsure if any works of the rebel government can be considered copyrighted, as practically the whole planet considered the regime and everything to do with it to be illegitimate. Am I understanding this correctly? Fry1989 eh? 01:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

If the regime was illegitimate, then it was a private organization whose works are protected under British and Zimbabwe copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Not just illegitimate, but illegal. That is why I am confused. Are illegal organisations allowed to claim copyright? Fry1989 eh? 17:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, even illegal organisation can still be protected under the copyright laws. But this case seems to be a little more interesting and I cannot even make up an opinion on whether the copyright would apply in this case, precisely because this regime had no international copyright treaties. What is the current Zimbabwe law regarding this, does anybody know? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 21:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Did they repudiate any international copyright treaties? The treaties binding the pre-independence state arguably would still be binding to the post-independence state. It seems likely the Berne Convention continued to hold over Rhodesia, and that Rhodesia intended to uphold it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

WIPO text of the Copyright Act of Zimbabwe, Sept. 2004. Repeals the 1967/1981 edition. Zimbabwe got its independence as a new nation in April 1980. Vysotsky (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Kishore Kumar images[edit]

  1. File:Kishore Kumar dans Bhagam Bhag (1956).jpg
  2. File:Kishore Kumar in New Delhi (1956).jpg
  3. File:Kishore kumar.png

1 and 2 are from films released in India in 1956, so they are {{PD-India}}. What would the U.S. copyright status be? {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}? What about 3 in India and the U.S.? It seems unlikely that the photographer would have died over 60 years ago if it was published circa 1953–54. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Text copyvio?[edit]

Is the texte on page Category:Olivio Kocsis-Cake a copyvio from https://parbeszedmagyarorszagert.hu/hu/kepviselo/kocsis-cake-olivio, or is it an allowed copy? --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. Apparently there is no free licence for this text, so the verbatim copy was indeed a copyvio. I have no removed this from the category page. De728631 (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing license from derivative file[edit]

There is a image I've found, File:Thumbnail of "We are not" video.png, which is a screenshot taken from File:Wikipedia - FactsMatter2016.webm (licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0). The problem is that the uploader doesn't mention that it is a derivative file and licensed it as their own work. Should the file be nominated for deletion or can the license be modified in order to correct the license? EdTre (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Because this is a simple screenshot (a single frame from the video), no additional copyright exists apart from that of the makers of the video itself. As such the person who has created screenshot can claim own work as much as they want, but they have no legal right to do so. I would simply correct the licence in the description. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Using CC-BY-SA 2.0 image from geograph.org.uk[edit]

I'd like to use this image

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/5865313

on wikipedia article

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Ross_Revenge

It is licenced under CC-BY-SA 2.0 (as are all images on geograph.org.uk).

Why I try to upload it I can choose

 The copyright holder published this work with the right Creative Commons license
   CC-BY-SA 2.5
   CC-BY-SA 3.0
   CC-BY-SA 4.0 

or

 The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license
   CC-BY-SA 2.0

Which should I choose? Why isn't CC-BY-SA 2.0 listed under the general case and only on the Flickr case?

Tantrie (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

In such cases when the licence isn't available I select anything and immediately change the licence template after upload. An example is here. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tantrie: There are many ways of doing this. If you want to use the Upload Wizard, select "Another reason not mentioned above" and enter {{geograph|5865313|Chris Fletcher}} (with the correct image ID and author) or {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} in the box. You can also follow the "Find out How to reuse this image link on the Geograph image page which leads you to a page at the bottom of which are two further methods of importing images to Commons, either using Geograph2Commons (which is very easy when it works) or copying and pasting into Special:Upload (which is what I usually resort to). --bjh21 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I created [5]. Tantrie (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Is this work derivative enough to be in the public domain?[edit]

On the page "Chinese Pavilion Open Work Charm" (Gary Ashkenazy / גארי אשכנזי (Primaltrek – a journey through Chinese culture).) or as a bare URL http://primaltrek.com/blog/2011/05/11/chinese-pavilion-open-work-charm/ there is an image of a Chinese open-work charm which is almost identical to the image found at File:1900 Book Prospectus Flier on Chinese Openwork Amulet Coins.jpg which was created by H.A. Ramsden (who died during World War II), now I have a copy of H.A. Ramsden's book about Chinese open-work charms and I can find the exact same image in it, only it looks a bit browner than the one from PrinalTrek, can I import the Primaltrek image as a public domain work as it derivative from H.A. Ramsden's illustration or is the white background original enough to make it a separate work? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)