Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Community portal
Help desk
Village pump
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.

Copyright status of the CC icons (used in several License tags and transcluded in thsousand of pages)[edit]

[Interjection: What follows is a misleading, inaccurate description of what I did and asked.  For an accurate description of what concerns me see Carl's summary.  -Elvey]

This seems a trivial issue, but some users are discussing about the copyright status of the CC icons present in Commons (used in License templates). Specially, the user Elvey tried to nominate File:Cc-by-sa.svg for deletion (see the File Talk page), but the file is protected for some reason. Therefore, the user opened this thread in the Help desk, asking why the file is protected and why he can't nominate it for deletion...

There are some considerations about these files:

And also, considering that these CC icons are used in License templates to indicate the license of files, and therefore, meets the allowed ussages in the FAQ, IMHO.


  • Are these icons (some or all of them) bellow the Threshold of originality?
  • Otherwise, Are these CC icons actually free to be used in Commons (in the context of licensing files under CC licenses)?

We need a clear concensus about this issue. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Amitie: Is it OK to use them in "License templates to indicate the license of files" and have them in a category, per se? Of course it is, but that's not all we're doing with them.
Trivial? TRIVIAL? Violating the copyright of Creative Commons doesn't seem trivial to me. If there's anyone whose copyright we should not disrespect, it's Creative Commons'! For one thing, we owe them, as a token of respect for all the good work they do and have done for us. We should handle these correctly. Many eyes are on these licenses, and when we disrespect them, what kind of example are we setting?
What's NOT OK is what I complained about, but you ignore. We're telling folks they are CC licensed. They aren't. For fuck sake, please don't misrepresent my argument again. Also you mention TOO as most important, but for some reason don't note that or link to where it's been said that gradients probably take these past the TOO. --Elvey (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
IMHO the disclaimer (bottom right) here is clear. [1] (Creative Commons License Buttons and Icons) doesn't invalidate this, IMHO that is. All high traffic pages are protected, nothing unusual there. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 14:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
It feels rather like you're refusing to get the point, Hedwig. The FAQ says "you may not alter the logos in any respect" - so this clearly is a note saying otherwise, when it comes to the logos.
Are you pleading ignorance or what, Hedwig? What part of *The Creative FAQ about the CC buttons do you not understand? --Elvey (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
That is part of the trademark license. It is not related to copyright or the concept of "free". If you feel we are committing a trademark violation by having these versions -- not outside the realm of possibility -- that is a separate matter (and can be worthy of deletion itself if we are). There is "fair use" of trademark as well, and we may be within that even if not explicitly given permission. There is a tortured history here which goes back years (maybe even a decade), and I haven't tried to find all the links -- but the top portion here is not authored by Creative Commons, but rather a contributor here. My vague memory says that was to avoid using a potential copyright on the icons themselves, as there was no copyright license on the buttons/icons at the time. I think it started with File:CC SomeRightsReserved.png, which was uploaded with a license by the uploader. That was converted to SVG with File:CC_some_rights_reserved.svg, which might be a derivative work and need the same licenses -- looks like the license has been flopped back and forth before. I guess after it was decided many/most of the CC icons (as opposed to buttons) were PD-ineligible then those were used to combine into other icons, with the copyright history being a bit of a mess. I'm sure it's below the threshold of eligibility in some countries (a simple gradient is not automatically eligible), but perhaps above in some others, so preserving the licenses might be a good idea, but those things have been copied far and wide. If you believe the icons in the bottom portion are PD, then there is no copyright issue here -- it is content owned (if even eligible) by a contributor here combined with some PD-ineligible works. All works are either PD or licensed freely which allows derivative works. Thus, there is no copyright issue, and all involved works are "free". They should not be deleted as non-free.
As for trademark... I don't know. The actual icon parts being used are not altered. This is not using the buttons, just the icons. They are combined with some other graphics, but is that actually trademark dilution? We are not using them for any other purpose -- in fact just the exact purpose they are meant to be used for. Their policy says: Creative Commons licenses the use of its button marks that describe a particular legal tool and its icon marks that describe a key license element, such as BY, NC, ND, and SA, on the conditions that you use the mark solely to describe the Creative Commons legal tool that applies to a particular work and, in a manner reasonable to the medium and context, include the URI or hyperlink to the relevant Commons deed on the Creative Commons server. It sure seems we are within that. It also says: You are not authorized to use any modified versions of our trademarks, except that you may use a different color for the CC logo and its background so long as the two colors chosen have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1. So they do allow altered versions of the CC logo in particular, which is basically what we are doing here. These have been here for 10 years, and I'm not sure Creative Commons has complained -- I'm sure we would listen if they did.
In short, there is no copyright issue here. Part of this was authored by contributors here, and the icons are also licensed freely by Creative Commons. The work is absolutely "free" by our definition. The licensing on these files might be a mess though given the history. Now, being free does not overrule any trademark rights at all, which remain in full force since they overlap, so we have to go by the terms of the trademark policy. Trademark violations are usually for misleading uses of a mark though -- there is none of that here; we use them for their prescribed purpose only. It feels to me as though we are within their trademark policy. I'm not sure that adding some surrounding material counts as "altering" the trademarked part (the circular icons). Thus, I don't feel there is a valid reason for deletion. Still, now that the CC buttons are freely licensed, it may be reasonable to retire our versions in preference to theirs anyways in our CC license tags. We probably have in many places. Even if retired though, I don't think we should delete them -- we can deprecate them if we think this is a big enough issue, but even just for historical purposes (looking at old versions of pages) these should be kept, and there is a long history with them. But I can also see folks preferring that we switch our tags to generally just use the buttons provided by CC (which are now "free" as well even though trademarked). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the history. I'll look at it. In the mean time:
You say "All works are either PD or licensed freely which allows derivative works." If there was good evidence of that, this discussion would be over, as far as I'm concerned. Stating it doesn't make it so. Stating that there's only a trademark issue doesn't make it so. Stating that the icons are also licensed freely by Creative Commons doesn't make it so. PROVE IT! If there was good evidence of ANY of that, this discussion would be over! Please address my argument. This trademark stuff is a distraction. So as to focus on what's key, do you see that the FAQ says "you may not alter the logos in any respect"? I am NOT concerned about CC logos that are not CC license permission-tagged. I'm not concerned with trademark issues. I ask that we stay focused.
Carl: Here's another argument that suggest the same conclusion: I see a double standard. Carl, you are saying on your talk page regarding work of the New Jersey government that we can't keep those works here because it's not 5000% clear that derivatives are allowed (and I'm arguing that it is clear that derivatives are allowed, but let's keep that discussion there). And yet here, there is strong evidence (certainly far more than needed to trigger COM:PRP) that derivatives are NOT allowed - "you may not alter the logos in any respect" is a copyright claim. Please explain why you do or don't see that as a double standard. No one has presented anything but the flimsiest evidence (namely the disclaimer (bottom right) here) that the logos have been released under a CC license. The onus is on those, like you, who want to keep CC license tags on the licenses currently thus tagged, to provide evidence that they are in fact CC licensed. If that can't be done, an administrator must remove the CC license tags. You cannot avoid the copyright issue by bringing up trademark issue distractions. Carl, can you please acknowledge for the record that you see that by tagging the licenses with CC license tags, we are telling people the logos are CC licensed? And that THIS is what concerns me?--Elvey (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, don't confuse Trademark restrictions with Copyright violations. Also, you didn't mentioned (or even considered) the Threshold or originality in neither part of your discussions.
In summary:
  • IMHO, we are not (or couldn't) violating the Trademark, because the icons are not altered, and all of them are used in the context that them are allowed to be used (License tags that provide the CC license for works, in the same way as the CC icons and buttons themselves), and,
  • We are not violating the Copyright in any way, due the Threshold of originality (Fair Use apply only for works above the TOO). (Almost) All the CC icons and buttons are (or seems) bellow the TOO in the US
Therefore, for your original question (trying to report a copyvio):
  • Short answer: The file is protected by wide Community concensus, due is heavily in use, including License template and several files, for several years.
  • Long answer: The whole above (and the over 10 years of) discussion, trying to explain the Threshold of originality, and the differences between Trademark and Copyright. We need to determine (if necessary in conjunction with Creative Commons) if this specific icon is bellow the TOO in the US (currently tagged with CC-BY-2.5) (the gradients are clearly bellow the TOO), or otherwise, finding a solution with Creative Commons... but deleting a high-visibility file is quite disruptive, even propossing them with weak arguments. The FAQ, the Policies and the Lawyers can say anything, but the US Copyright Law is the US Copyright Law, and the key of this discussion (and your question) is the TOO.
This is not a trivial issue that can be taken too lightly. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You ignore the bulk of what I've written. For fuck sake, Mr Ostrich, there are other members of community who object to what I'm objecting to. At least you do say: "(Almost) All the CC icons and buttons are (or seems) bellow the TOO in the US". What I am pissed off about is the icons that are above the TOO in the US. What part of that is so hard to understand? For fuck sake!! At least you take back your use of the word trivial. Yet you're still telling lies. Latest libelous statement removed. Amitie, can you please acknowledge for the record that YOU see that by tagging the licenses with CC license tags, we are telling people the logos are CC licensed? --Elvey (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Addendum: Administrators, please fix this. We mustn't be telling people they're free to make derivative works when we know they're not, and by leaving these incorrectly tagged, we're doing exactly that - and indirectly causing liability for copyright infringement. Others agree.

Well, when they say "you may not alter the logos in any respect" -- the question is what rights they are using to enforce that. You say that is a copyright claim, but the tenor of everything in there uses trademark language. Strictly speaking, the FAQ is not the policy text either -- the actual policy is a bit more nuanced. But if they are using copyright to enforce that, then yes it's an issue. If that is only part of the trademark terms on the other hand, it's not a free vs non-free issue, but strictly a trademark issue. For File:Cc-by-sa.svg, the top portion is not by CC at all -- that is unambiguously either PD-ineligible or licensed freely by the uploaders here. So then we have the two icons, the person in a circle and the backwards C in a circle. I think those, individually, are definitely PD-ineligible. Given File:Nikken Logo.jpg I don't think the humanoid figure gets any copyright, and putting a circle around things also doesn't add any copyright either. So, if those are PD-ineligible, there is no copyright that exists on File:Cc-by-sa.svg where CC could make a copyright claim or enforce any terms via copyright. I think that basically goes for all of their simple icons (the symbols in a circle), other than possibly the Remix one, and they have generally been uploaded here with PD-ineligible licenses. So if we agree that is the case, there is no copyright in the first place, so "you may not alter the logos in any respect" cannot be based on copyright at all for those. It can only be based on trademark. And do note that their trademark terms do allow you to modify the CC icon a bit. This style of graphic was created for the very reason you suggest -- to avoid using any copyrighted CC graphics which they do not release under a free license.
When it comes to the buttons (as opposed to the icons) I'm less sure. And while I thought the sitewide license covered those graphics, the policies page does say: Other than the Creative Commons trademarks (licensed subject to the Trademark Policy below) and the text of Creative Commons legal tools and human-readable Commons deeds (dedicated to the public domain as specified below), all content on this site is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license unless otherwise marked. So, that would seem to exclude the trademarked items from the sitewide CC-BY-4.0 license. So, if any of those trademarked graphics are above the threshold of originality, copyright would exist and would appear to not be licensed, so they would be non-free. But if they are considered below the threshold, copyright again can't exist in the first place. I'm less sure the buttons are below the threshold, though it's possible. If they are not "free" we probably shouldn't use them, so strike my suggestion above. But File:Cc-by-sa.svg doesn't -- that uses no copyrighted content from CC at all.
As for the New Jersey thing, the terms there are for works which are known to be copyrighted in the first place. Obviously, if there are PD-ineligible works on those web pages, those can be copied -- no copyright license can apply to those. And if you read my reply, I leaned towards that license being free anyways -- I just noted that the lack of specific mention of derivative works would probably be the contentious part if it came to a vote here. But anyways, when it comes to the simple icons in a circle, I don't think there is any copyright to begin with. We just have to deal with the trademark. And the white "CC" with the black gradient background is not a CC graphic -- that is by a contributor here, so no copyright issue there either. The CC buttons are the main question -- if PD-ineligible, they are OK, but if above the threshold, they aren't. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
CARL! I asked you, Carl, can you please acknowledge for the record that you see that by tagging the licenses with CC license tags, we are telling people the logos are CC licensed? And that THIS is what concerns me? Can you please respond?--Elvey (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
You mean the tags on the license images taken directly from Creative Commons' site? Agree, they should be either PD-ineligible/PD-textlogo or nothing (i.e. deleted). And marked {{trademarked}}. But when they get combined with other content which had a CC-BY license to begin with, that gets more difficult. If that was a valid license when uploaded, that is necessary to preserve. Often, even if PD-ineligible in the US, I prefer to keep them to avoid issues in other countries. There probably should be text though which clarifies the icons in a circle are PD-ineligible, and gives their source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
YES! GREAT - we're in agreement, WRT You mean the tags on the license images taken directly from Creative Commons' site? Agree, they should be either PD-ineligible/PD-textlogo or nothing (i.e. deleted). And marked {{trademarked}}. . Now we just need an admin to make it so. Amite?
I personally have replaced the CC license tags on some of these logos with PD-ineligible tags. But I'm unable to do so here due to someone being bullheaded, protecting them, and threatening me, thereby blocking discussion. So we have this circus. Let me be clear: if the CC license tags are removed, then the main issue that concerns me is resolved. If there's rough consensus that all of the logos are PD-ineligible (there may be), and PD-ineligible license tags are placed where CC license tags once were, I won't fight that. --Elvey (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Except there is content on this that may need to have the license tags. File:CC SomeRightsReserved.png was uploaded with licenses, and it may not be a good idea to simply remove those from derivatives. That may well be PD-ineligible in the US as well, but it still might be good to preserve in case it's above the threshold elsewhere. It looks like licenses have been swapped back and forth before, so it is all a bit messy. For images which combine that with the CC icons, then perhaps the licensing section should be clear as to which part the license refers to. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Glad to see we're making more progress. I see that there are some CC logos that seem to have been created de novo by wikimedians, rather than by Creative Commons folks. There may well be a trademark infringement issue there!
But before discussing/addressing those further, let's deal with the issue of license images taken directly from Creative Commons' site, and derivations thereof. Those are not CC-licensed, and any that are so tagged need to be untagged. For those that are protected, we need an admin to make it so. Amitie 10g?
Here are a few more examples of license images taken directly from Creative Commons' site with this problem - as Carl says they should be either PD-ineligible/PD-textlogo or nothing (i.e. deleted). And marked {{trademarked}}.: File:CC-BY-NC-SA-icon-88x31.png CC-BY-NC-SA-icon-88x31.png File:Cc-by white.png Cc-by white.svg File:Cc-by-nc-nd icon.svg Cc-by-nc-nd icon.svg (protected)
Regarding trademark issues: The FAQ says: "Creative Commons does not recommend using a CC license on a logo or trademark. " It even says "Applying a CC license to your trademarks and logos could even result in a loss of your trademark rights altogether." Are you seriously claiming they have failed to follow their own advice? I trust not. So I think that's evidence that you're way out on a limb with your arguments that we can assume that they have released their logos under a CC license despite the "you may not alter the logos in any respect" lingo. Given they are clearly and strongly urging everyone not do to this, in plain and simple language, it seems wacky to assume they've done so anyway based on arguably tortured interpretations of arguably unclear language. --Elvey (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
@Elvey: Make an actual edit request, with the support of a consensus, and it will be done. The protections are obviously appropriate per the protection policy (heavily used images) and the inability of a non-privileged user to edit them to request deletion is a matter of Mediawiki functionality (there is no way to protect a page against only certain types of edits, and not others) and thus something that cannot be addressed by Commons admins, other than by making edits to such pages when requested. My personal understanding is that the CC images are only protected by trademark, not copyright, and thus that these complaints are just a waste of time, but I am willing to be overruled. Revent (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
So you ignore PRP and perpetuate copyfraud merely because you don't like the form of the edit requests I made and are evidently ignorant regarding copyright. Wow. The lack of remediation and active interference in remediation and participation in copyfraud by admins and your demanding that I individually flag each file with the edit request template is obstructionist bureaucracy at its worst. I can understand why User:Jimbo Wales threw up his hands in disgust at the admin pool here and doesn't even log in here anymore.
Your comment is deceptive; it's tangential because the edit history shows protection obviously wasn't put in place because they were heavily used images. There's consensus. PRP applies; an administrator must remove the CC license tags that are not valid. Furthermore, your statement of your understanding regarding copyright is evidence of your ignorance. I made an edit request. This is not a bureaucracy. --Elvey (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Please avoid the personal attacks. An image that is transcluded on thousands of pages (like File:Cc-by-sa.svg) should obviously be under full protection, the log entry when it was protected was "Highly visible image" with a link to the protection policy, and that policy specifically says "Pages may be full protected indefinitely if they are heavily used images or frequently transcluded templates to prevent vandalism." That directly applies to the CC license icons, and it's highly unlikely that they are going to be unprotected. If you want to open a DR on a protected image, just ask an admin to do it. We can't let you edit them to open a DR without letting any random autoconfirmed vandal change their description to 'poop'. As far wanting some of the licenses to be changed, without saying something like "here is a list of files, please change X to Y, per whatever discussion", you're basically just asking for an admin to skim though a category and 'supervote' on what they think should be changed, and that would be inappropriate. It would just open the door for more arguing later. Also, you can't just remove the only license tag from an image and just leave it floating in 'unlicensed limbo'. If you don't think a valid license applies to an image, DR it or flag it as a 'no license' speedy. Revent (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
What I actually wrote are statements regarding your comments - I commented on your comments, not on you - as our policies advise us to do. They contain so many things that are incorrect about the situation and copyright law I feel like throwing up my hands in despair. CIR! Therefore it's not a personal attack,Revent. Also, please stop being argumentative by, e.g. spewing more tangential commentary - obviously the protection was applied to protect this edit (which is copyfraud) by the editor who protected the page immediately after committing the copyfraud! Can you please admit or deny you see that temporal connection between those two edits? You seem to be avoiding seeing it, which is why I ask the pointed question. I'm not disputing that "Highly visible image" is a valid reason for protection. I'm just pointing out that there's obviously another reason the protection was put in place. Please AGF, specifically: make an effort to understand my points. We CAN just remove the only license tag from an image and leave it to others to figure out if a valid license can be added, and to do so. We do that FREQUENTLY. --Elvey (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Just to make this whole 'edit request' drama more explicit.. you said at File talk:Cc-by-sa.svg "My specific request is that this file be deleted". It's not going to be deleted on the basis of such a request, because there had been no deletion discussion. An edit request to 'open a DR for me', or to 'edit this page to link this DR I opened', would be fine, but that isn't what you asked for.
As far as the "Policy" page on the Creative Commons website, to my reading it nowhere says "You cannot modify our icons", it says "You cannot use our trademarked icons in connection with a modified license." Since the icons are all either CC-licensed or PD, there is no issue with the creation of derivative works based on them (you just need to respect any trademarks in regards to 'how' you use them). It's really not copyfraud for someone to claim that their own work (whether creating a new work, or a derivative) is under a free license, and that is what CC (and the creators of derivative icons) seem to be doing. They might be 'wrong' (if it's actually PD) but it's not copyfraud, since there is patently no attempt to get and kind of material gain (like a royalty) from the claim. Copyfraud really applies to attempt to make a profit from falsely claiming to own someone else's work. Without actual fraud, it can't be copyfraud, it can only be wrong. Revent (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Please AGF, Revent, specifically: make an effort to understand my points. Your comments contain so many things that are incorrect about the situation and copyright law I don't know where to start. CIR!
You don't know what copyfraud is. This is copyfraud. You need to read THIS, which says in part, Actually, Mazzone makes it clear that copyfraud does *not* require a specific showing of intent." and Mazzone makes it clear that "copyfraud" is not simply a kind of fraud. Please make an effort to understand that discussion. Your idea that "Without actual fraud, it can't be copyfraud" has been discussed there and discarded as incorrect.
Evidence is sorely lacking that "the icons are all either CC-licensed or PD". I've quoted several statements from the CC website that you seem to be purposefully ignoring - statements that are strong evidence against this claim. And see Carl's comment below. None are CC-licensed. Some are PD.
Of course its not copyfraud for someone to claim that their own original work is under a free license. It is copyfraud for someone to claim that a derivative of a copyrighted work that's not under a free license, is under a free license. I claimed the latter, you misunderstand if you think I think the former is copyfraud! A profit motive is NOT a necessary component of copyfraud. You think it is; provide evidence for that claim or drop it, please. False copyright notices are copyfraud. Source - and note; the term "copyfraud" was coined herein by the author, a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois--Elvey (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think their website is pretty explicit that their trademarked graphics are not CC-licensed (and it looks like it has been pretty explicit for many years). Many are PD-ineligible, but if any are not, they could be copyright issues. Elvey's other point is that ones which are PD-ineligible should be changed to say so (since there is no CC license on any of them by CC itself, though Commons-authored graphics like this one might be). File:Cc-by-sa.svg is a bad example because it combines a PD-ineligible graphics with a GFDL/CC-licensed work by a Commons contributor. File:Cc-by-sa (1).svg is a more interesting question (and the one which is least likely to be PD-ineligible). I don't think there is a basis for the current license there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
HEAR HEAR! Exactly. Thank you for clarifying / restating the key issues and your understanding thereof. Please w:make it so already, rather than arguing ad infinitum, admins. (As for work that combines PD-ineligible graphics with a GFDL/CC-licensed work by a Commons contributor, we should be making it clear, including by identifying the author as that Commons contributor, not CC.) --Elvey (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: Taking a closer look at File:Cc-by-sa (1).svg, I see very suspect provenance. It says "Source" but lists ArdWar as the author. Both of those can't be true. (It's farfetched that ArdWar worked for CC.) So I think CC is the author, and ArdWar merely uploaded it. So I rather doubt it's GFDL/CC-licensed work by a Commons contributor and so needs to be deleted - unless we A)decide TOO isn't met AND B)correct the author field. Same situation with a bunch of these. --Elvey (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
ArdWar is listed as the uploader, not the author. Common boilerplate put in by the transfer bots. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant that since they are all (the CC-sourced ones, and the user-created versions) either CC-licensed or PD, there is nothing to prevent creating derivative versions, certainly not a trademark. The only components that even come close to being copyrightable, IMO, are the 'CC-BY' man, and the 'waveform' used on the old sampling license, and both of those are so similar to copious prior art that I'd really surprised. The idea of creating that kind of 'button' is also not new to them. The only possible trademark issue I see (other than trying to parse CC's intent regarding what isn't licensed, especially since there are ones that meet the description that aren't on that page) is that it might be better to use the 'official' buttons in our license templates, instead of the ones created by third parties. As far as the files that actually do have the wrong tag, I'll plow through and look for them, but it looks like most aren't protected anyway. Revent (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: I don't see where the CC-sourced ones are CC-licensed. I think that's the crux of the issue. Their rights page explicitly exempts those graphics from the site-wide CC-BY license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Apparently not my day to be clear, probably because this whole conversation has been about multiple things at once. I'll try to do better, and you can consider this to be ignoring any CC-sourced icons that you think are copyrightable (I really don't think any are). The 'other' CC-sourced icons are all PD. The user-sourced icons are all either PD, or CC-licensed. Either of those is sufficient to allow for the creation of derivatives, so any we have that are not based on copyrightable CC-sourced icons are fine to keep (though the licensing should of course be fixed).
Any trademark restrictions on the CC-sourced material are irrelevant to this, even if they restrict modification, because trademark only applies to their use in some context. Our hosting of them as downloadable files is not in the context of representing the licenses; we are depicting the icons themselves (File:Coca-Cola logo.svg is not trademark infringement). The only place where we could (potentially) be in trademark trouble is where we are using 'unofficial' logos to represent CC licenses, or if we were using CC-trademarked material to represent other licenses.
All I have been doing to these is changing the license tag on ones that are incontrovertibly directly from Creative Commons to be either PD-textlogo or PD-ineligible instead of having the CC license that everyone agrees is wrong. So far, it looks like hardly any of them are protected anyhow. Any that are 'based on' CC-sourced material will need a closer look, to decide if the creator of the derivative added anything that is copyrightable. If someone thinks one of the CC-sourced icons 'is' actually copyrightable, then it (and it's derivatives) need to go to DR.
Any complaints? Revent (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: No complaints... that is how I see it. I think much of the initial idea was mostly to fix the licensing, as many of the CC-sourced icons have a CC license instead of PD-ineligible. Those should absolutely be fixed, and I think is all that User:Elvey is asking (at this point anyways). Most of the CC-sourced icons are absolutely PD-ineligible and not a problem to host here, as you say. The style of icons such as File:Cc-by-sa (1).svg I'm a lot less sure about, though PD-ineligible is still a decent possibility. There's a bit more arrangement going on there. At this point though, the licenses should be changed to PD-ineligible, unless it is from a Commons uploader and licensed that way, in which case the license should be fixed to correspond with those original uploads. File:Cc-by-sa.svg still has an incorrect license I think -- the upload it was based on was an earlier version of CC-BY I think, and cross-licensed GFDL. But yes I'm in agreement (as is I think User:Elvey; I think he assumed that something was not PD-ineligible and was thus trying to start a DR but that was not the correct approach for that file for sure). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, my main concern at this point (what I am doing) is removing the CC licenses that are clearly incorrect from images that came directly from CC, and flagging them as some form of ineligible instead. Like I've noted, most are unprotected so anyone can fix them, though. As far as the ones like File:Cc-by-sa (1).svg, you're completely right that they are more complex. My argument would essentially be that the concept of such a 'button' for websites, with the organization logo placed on the left, was around long before Creative Commons made these, and the other aspects of the design also appear to be to be 'standard and obvious'. It's clearly a matter of degree (and opinion) but I don't see any 'particular' point of the design that I can point at and say "This is creatively original". If someone feels otherwise, we can always debate that point, and see what people decide, but I don't think anyone has been trying to make that particular case in this discussion. Revent (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


If my edit requests have been insufficiently clear, let me try again. Let me be clear/ make a new clear request. An admin needs to remove any CC license tag from all uploads that are sourced from, including File:Cc-by-sa (1).svg As I have said, and Carl concurs, "their website is pretty explicit that their trademarked graphics are not CC-licensed (and it looks like it has been pretty explicit for many years)." My specific request is that the CC tags such as {{Cc-by-3.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} be removed promptly.--Elvey (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting {{Cc-by-3.0}} and {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}? ...Well, I seriously thinking that you're just trolling; if I'm wrong, please provide valid and solid reasons why you want to delete these files and templates used in thousand (and even million) of pages.
Even if the Protection Policy is not enough for you, the US Copyright Law comes into play. The prhase Threshold of originality is mentioned 5 times above, but you didn't mentioned (and even considered?) that, making your reasoning for deletion almost invalid. Namely, all the CC icons and buttons, even File:Cc-by new.svg are not protected by the US Copyright Law, and therefore, there is no copyvio or copyfraud in any way (unless the specific versions of these buttons has been created in countries where the TOO is very low). If you disagree, just contact the US Patent and Trademark Office or any US Government agency (and even an US Federal Court) and ask if the design of File:Cc-by new.svg meets or not the TOO (we also need an answer from the US Government); if they decided that the design is bellow the TOO, nothing to do...
And yes, we should credit and source properly the CC buttons, but wanting to delete files and templates heavily in use is just disruptive and not the best way to keep Commons free. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Amitie 10g: I'm pretty sure he doesn't actually want to delete those templates (though, that is how it read) but to have those templates removed from some file pages (the ones that are actually CC trademarks, and so not CC-licensed by CC). I'm actually looking through the categories right now for the ones where it applies, though most don't seem to be protected pages, so anyone could fix the issue (as long as they didn't just leave them unlicensed). Revent (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Though 'all uploads that are sourced from' was really not an effective way to find the problems, after hunting through Category:Creative Commons icons and Category:SVG Creative Commons icons I think I caught them all. Hopefully, we have no more cases of claiming that Creative Commons has issued a CC license for any of their trademarks, and should be noting the existence of such a trademark when applicable. If I missed something, or made a mistake somewhere, please either fix it or bring it up (or, if you think it's needed, start a DR). Revent (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

en:File:S. Van Campen & Company - Salesmans Sample of Kensington Tiles - Google Art Project (6973621).jpg[edit]

and en:File:S. Van Campen & Company - Salesmans Sample of Kensington Tiles - Google Art Project.jpg

Hi, I was ready to copy these here, but why would this be in the public domain? It is not 2D art, and AFAIK, Google claims a copyright over its pictures. It seems that some people on enwp think it is OK: en:Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#File:S. Van Campen & Company - Salesmans Sample of Kensington Tiles - Google Art Project (6973621).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

But there are conflicting issues concerning the Brooklyn Museum's copyright statements. Ww2censor (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, so I suppose, the result is "we don't care about Google claims", since the Brooklyn Museum says it is OK? Yann (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is a good interpretation. Do we even know for sure that the images were authored by Google and not by the museum? The identical images are on the museums website. Ww2censor (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No. But the photo appears to be by the Brooklyn Museum. I don't think Google has any claim. The Brooklyn Museum website says "No known copyright restrictions", similar to their Flickr Commons stuff. Which would appear to mean they are releasing the work to the public domain. Except, not sure the hi-res version is available on the Brooklyn Museum website, and then the question is if there is some kind of release on the Google site from the Brooklyn Museum. Is the photo actually on Flickr Commons anywhere? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
      • OK, so I copied them here. There is certainly no problem with the Brooklyn Museum, seeing this and this. However, I wonder what license tag should we use for the pictures. {{no known copyright restrictions}} mentions Flickr, and these files do not come from Flickr. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but those links about this "Social Change" do not clarify the licencing for me especially when you consider the facts I posted on the enwiki discussion. On the one hand the museum provides a Creative Commons licence {{cc-by-3.0}} at but they contradict that licence in the statement on this webpage which has a commercial restriction that is effectively a {{cc-by-nc-3.0}} licence. This needs clarification as the two conflict so which licencing do you want to accept? I decided to see if their copyright page was on the Wayback Machine and I see that between 2004 and 2007 their Creative Commons licence was a cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 but there is no record of any changes to the page between 2007 and 16 June 2015 when the revised licence cc-by-3.0 appears. Obviously they updated from 2.0 to 3.0 a few months ago but it could be that the NC and ND were removed by mistake or perhaps their policy changed. We need to determine exactly which because we cannot infer anything from the current pages linked here. Obviously the freer licence is the one we desire but the clear statement barring commercial restricts us. Ww2censor (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Good news; these two images are good. The images are freely licenced by the Brooklyn Museum. I had a good copyright conversation with Deborah Wythe, the Vice Director of Digital Engagement & Technology at the Brooklyn Museum, who told me that only last week some legal eagles had pointed out places on their website where their licencing had not been updated to reflect their current policy, which is free licencing. One of the pages is the one that states commercial use is not allowed per this webpage which she said is to be updated but had not yet been done. Most of the images on the Brooklyn Museum website are their own and they will attribute images that are not theirs. Ww2censor (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Ladies' home journal from 1947 / 1948[edit]

As part of my book plates project I have uploaded several hundred of images from this journal, they seem of value to illustrate domestic life and values from the U.S. I have since raised a deletion request against what is probably going to turn out to be all my uploads, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Ladies' home journal (1889) (14580245160).jpg as I doubt the "no copyright known" license on Flickr.

I would really appreciate extra eyes on the DR and the context of the images. The detailed catalogues from the IA are here (v.65) and here (v.64). These seem to be the only volumes released on Flickr (later volumes have been scanned, these two seem the earliest digitized). I may be overlooking some obvious point of U.S. copyright law which could make these copyright free, but I would have thought they would not be public domain until 2017/2018 based on the 70 year rule. It seems a shame to delete the lot if there might be a wrinkle here that IA are using, so please do add any thoughts or counter viewpoints on the DR. Thanks -- (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

What 70 year rule? There is no 70 year rule in the US applicable here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to 70 years post mortem auctoris per Copyright rules by territory, though it's already been pointed out that a toss up between 95 years post-publication or public domain is more likely for these cases. Some useful sources have been added to the DR and a system of triage for the 1,080 relevant cropped images is being considered pending some file renames in progress. Thanks -- (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Internet Archive doesn't seem to actually 'do' copyright clearances, but instead relies on takedown notices, so there is a lot of questionable material there. The person who scanned and uploaded those also uploaded the July 2002 issue, which seems like a pretty obvious copyright problem, so I don't think we can assume that the IA exercised any kind of 'due diligence' regarding these. Revent (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Not more likely for these cases; 70 years pma is rarely relevant in the US, as it's only relevant for works not published until 2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that I'm uploading material from Flickr Commons, not the Internet Archive. These particular images are crops from the versions that the IA has on their site, which they have then decided to release on to Flickr Commons as NCK. There is a lot of material on the IA archive that is clearly marked with more restrictive copyright licenses than Wikimedia Commons will accept, as well as media with unknown copyright status. There are several volumes of the Ladies' Home Journal scanned and donated to IA, only the earliest first two are on Flickr Commons. -- (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Fae: Yeah, what you are doing (mirroring the Flickr feed) was clear. My point was that I don't think the Internet Archive really does any kind of actual clearance, even on the ones they put on Flickr. There's probably not any kind of 'subtle point' they are relying on, I think saying 'no known restrictions' here is rather of an expression of "nobody has complained, and so we are ignorant of any problem", not saying "we checked, and couldn't find any issues." Revent (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Public domain?[edit]

I was in the process of uploading an image file from flickr, and noticed that although the user (here) had marked all his files as public domain, it is not the same as CCO waiver. The licence, Public Domain Mark 1.0, is not listed as an option. What exactly is the status of these files, and what do I select as the licence? Hzh (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Flickr-public domain mark}} recommends that {{PD-Author|Author's name}} be used for photos uploaded to Flickr by their creator who released them into the public domain but who didn't use Flickr's CC0 option. —RP88 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. {{Flickr-public domain mark}} appears to suggest that I cannot upload the file unless I am the creator of the file, is that correct? Or does it mean that if the file has been marked as public domain in Flickr, then I can upload it? I assume it's the latter, but just a bit confused why if it is already marked as public domain in Flickr, it would still question if it is in the public domain or not. Hzh (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hzh, in this case the author's name should be the name of the Flickr user. Flickr has two license options that are displayed as "Public domain", but link to different descriptions. They have "Public Domain Dedication" which links to This is the license a Flickr user should use for their own works which they wish to release as public domain. These images should use {{cc-zero}} on Commons. Flickr also has "Public Domain Mark" which links to This allows a Flickr user to indicate that an image (including one that may not be their own) is in the public domain without saying why it is in the public domain. Commons wants uploaders to actually say why an image in the public domain, not just that it is. This is why {{Flickr-public domain mark}} insists that it be replaced with a more specific public domain copyright tag. It offers a couple of suggestions based on common situations if you click the grey box expand its notes. For example, a Flickr user might use "Public Domain Mark" for a scan of a lithograph from a book published in the U.S. before 1923 in which case the Flickr image could be uploaded to Commons with the {{PD-1923}} copyright tag. I'm not sure why the Flickr user in this particular case has used "Public Domain Mark" instead of "Public Domain Dedication" for what are pretty clearly their own photos (maybe Flickr doesn't explain the difference well to their users?), but if I were uploading one of these Flickr photos to Commons I would use {{PD-author|[ Jnzl]}} as the license on Commons. —RP88 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. It does get confusing at times. Hzh (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:PD-USGov-Military-National Guard license valid?[edit]

(also affected; Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air National Guard) Today on en.wikipedia, there is an image on the main page in the "In the news" section. The image is located here. The image was ported from Commons to en.wikipedia temporarily. The image is tagged with {{PD-USGov-Military-National Guard}}. That template doesn't exist on en.wikipedia, but does here.

The National Guard have a dual status; they are normally under the control of the respective states from which they come. In times of emergency, they can be federalized, in which case control transfers from the state to the federal government. This potentially affects an image taken by a member of the National Guard in the pursuit of their duty.

Thus: If an image is taken by a member of the National Guard when that unit has not been federalized, but is acting under orders of their state authority, the image would be the property of the state, not the federal government, no? In this particular case, the source of the image is here. The SC National Guard has tagged this image as "© All rights reserved". They certainly seem to think they have copyright on their images. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a great question. I have dealt with quite a few "national guard" photographs, however as these were given DoD releases as PD by the photographers, they are on safer grounds. I have never seen a Federal statement that makes all National Guard data PD under Federal law such that one would disregard claims of restrictive copyright. If someone can point to such a thing, problem solved. Otherwise this question should lead to a deletion request for the template (probably needing 30 days rather than 7, it will have quite a large impact) and we can have a discussion about it on the record, along with how to move verifiable PD material to a stronger license... -- (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Transclusion counts for these templates (I added another one, same issue): {{PD-USGov-Military-National Guard}} - 9052. {{PD-USGov-Military-Air National Guard}} - 198. Large impact indeed. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • More investigation; I found this on the Maryland National Guard site. It says "may be distributed or copied for non-commercial purposes" (emphasis mine). Contrastingly, Nevada [2] and Maine [3] do not have the non-commercial restriction. Obviously the non-commercial restriction is incompatible with Commons licensing, while the other two are fine. I note this to show that there's discrepancies among the various guards, likely undermining these templates as global licensing tags. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Tricky. I'd argue that images that have been assigned a VIRIN ID by the Department of Defense for public release are presumptively valid {{PD-USGov-Military-National Guard}}. However the number of images in Category:Files created by the United States National Guard with known IDs is small (only 171). I'd also argue that any photos taken during WW I or WW II are valid {{PD-USGov-Military-National Guard}} (I am not sure how many of these there are on Commons). There are also a bunch that are probably mistagged as Guard photos simply because they came from a Guard website (e.g. File:A-10A_Idaho_ANG_over_Sawtooth_Range_2009.jpg). —RP88 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, the file on en.WP was ported from File:Columbia,_South_Carolina,_October_5,_2015,_levee_breach.jpg, and the source is here on Flickr and it has a DoD VIRIN, i.e. 151005-Z-XH297-005. —RP88 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I did a little research, and under Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations, members of the National Guard are paid from federal funds when they are on active duty (typically due to federal emergency activation or deployment), full-time duty, or even inactive-duty training, despite the case that for the latter two they are under state command. It is only when they are activated for state active duty that they are paid from state funds (and are, of course, under state command). So for the vast majority of their service time members of the National Guard are not state employees. —RP88 (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That's interesting. Though, in their dual status where they get paid from might not have an effect on copyright, as they are not under federal command unless federalized. I don't know. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The en:National Guard Bureau is part of the federal government, so yes it can be a valid license. There are per-state offices as well, which should not fall under that license, unless the author was on loan from another branch of the military (which does happen often). I see a very similar image here, which is by "Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jorge Intriago", which seems to indicate that Jorge Intriago is a member of the USAF and thus the image should be PD-USGov. If an image is released on the DoD site, I think that is enough, really. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not really concerned with this particular image, for which I think there's a fair (but not absolute) certainty it is public domain. Rather, I'm concerned about our ability to say anything national guard = free. That seems highly suspect. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Fellowship of Isis.jpg[edit]

Just uploaded, but I can find copies.[4] Doug Weller (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

That should be {{PD-text}}, shouldn’t it? The hieroglyphs appear to be conventionally drawn and arranged, without any creative expression; moreover I‘m pretty sure substantially identical forms can be found in widely available fonts.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes probably. In fact, I've got reason to believe that the uploader has rights to it, but as they haven't identified themselves I won't go down that road. Doug Weller (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


This contributor was warned here on WC that his uploads where out of scope and just placed here for advertising purposes. He was warned on his WC talk page that he was facing a block. He now has had an indefinite block put on him on WP (Eadh just happen to be the initials of EAST AFRICAN DATA HANDLERS LTD and his edits confirm that he has some sort of very strong COI). Looking at the images on User:OgreBot/Uploads_by_new_users/2015_August_27_06:00I don't think we can accept the license given on these images either. What do we do with them ? I think speedy. --Aspro (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

File:GeorgeNjoroge.png is just a crop from his twitter so yea, speedy sounds correct. /Hangsna (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-free software screenshots bellow the Threshold of originality[edit]

Concerning the newer tendency of software companies to simplify its interfaces, I found some non-free software screenshots, namely, the Microsoft Edge (the successor of Internet Explorer in Windows 10): this and this file (where I opened this DR).

For that reason, I've created this template mainly for US non-free software (but also for other countries) screenshots, but bellow the TOO (I'll create more license tags for other juridsdictions accordin how we discus this), and start this discussion with some questions:

  • Are the MS Edge (and other Windows 10) interface actually bellow the TOO, and therefore allowed in Commons?
  • Is my new License tag a good idea to tag US-only non-free software in this way? Sugegstions?

This discussion is aimed mainly for US non-free software screenshots, but also for non-US ones, like some (non-free UK game) ones like this, this or this (them and more related, nominated for deletion). Then, I also invite to comment tn these DRs and explain if these screenshots of are actually bellow the TOO in the UK (and therefore allowed in Commons). --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Some computer software is below the threshold of originality. The icons in Microsoft Edge are maybe not. If the icons are not below the threshold, then it is not permissible to upload pictures of the icons for the purpose of displaying what Microsoft Edge looks like as the icons then are intentionally included (and thus not de minimis). --Stefan4 (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
For the recod, this DR opened by Me was closed by Yann as Kept, where the icons of MS Edge are effectively not de minimis because are part of the browser interface, therefore, the main purpose of the screenshot... but these icons are just lines and circles, IMHO bellow the TOO. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Publicity photo of Mort Sahl[edit]

Can someone familiar with PD publicity photos please review a suggested upload posted on my subpage? Thanks in advance. --Light show (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

New License template {{Resolution restricted-by-sa}}[edit]

FYI, as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files using User:Saffron Blaze/license and similar licenses decision I moved User:Saffron Blaze/license to template namespace, called it {{Resolution restricted-by-sa}} and made it into an official license template. --Jarekt (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jarekt: I believe the DR discussion linked has no firm evidence that this would be a valid or enforceable copyright license. This appears to be an attempt to force Commons to accept a form of the "no derivatives" license restriction, which is outside of Project scope, per Commons:Project_scope#Required_licensing_terms.
As this template would change our understanding and definition of scope, I do not believe that a DR is the appropriate venue to consider we have a community consensus. This should be a proposal to change project scope before making the template "live". Thanks -- (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of this template and sure hope is not going to find many followers, but I do not see "no derivatives" license restriction in there. The only substantial difference from CC-BY-SA license is that license only covers the uploaded file and whatever you can derive from it, but does not cover higher-resolution versions of the same image you can find elsewhere. And in that is not much different than Template:BArch-License that also worked on the same assumption. --Jarekt (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
IMO this template is a legitimate answer to the mess created by CC's sudden and unexpected paradigm shift late in 2013[5]. This template just expresses what every creator of digital works implicitely expects. --Túrelio (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It says "Restriction – Licensee may not use higher resolution versions of this work." What does "higher resolution versions" mean? On a computer screen, the resolution is typically measured in pixels, but how do you determine if you are using a "higher resolution version" if you have a printed edition of the work? This restriction looks like a nightmare: postcard publishers won't know what's allowed and what's not allowed. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Open Government Licence[edit]

I would appreciate more eyes at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Iain Duncan Smith May 2015.jpg. We seem to have a large number of UK Government official photos that have been tagged with an Open Government Licence but the "source" points to a page that does not contain the full-size image we are hosting. The whereabouts of these full-size images is sometimes hard to locate, but sometimes it is a Flickr album. In this particular DR, there is a thumbnail of IDS at but no large image. The Flickr page is licensed CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 which is incompatible with Commons.

Similarly we have File:Grant Shapps Official.jpg which is sourced to That in turn claims permission from which makes mention of the OGL as a general possible licence for material on the website. However, the OGL itself explicitly excludes "personal data". The UK Government licensing framework says

"The Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) defines UK law on the processing of data on identifiable living people and protects personal data. Photographs of identifiable individuals could be considered to be personal data under DPA. The UKGLF does not authorise the re-use of any personal data."

The MOD Copyright Licensing Information agrees with this interpretation saying:

"The Open Government Licence is not suited for use with “Personal Data”. The presence of Personal Data means that at least one individual is recognisable within an image. Often this means their face is clearly visible, however it can also refer to distinguishing marks being clear, or simply the context within which they are working, that makes them recognisable."

It seems we have two problems. First that many of these images have "source" that doesn't actually point to where the real JPG came from. We need accurate source data. Is the licence transferable from a thumbnail on a GOV.UK website onto a full-size Flickr image that appears to have a non-Commons-compatible licence? I think not. Secondly, the OGL appears to exclude itself from being used for photos of people. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Omar Sharif & Barbra Streisand 1973 press photo[edit]

Can someone familiar with publicity or press photos please review a suggested upload posted on my subpage? --Light show (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sculptures in Statengalerij: Freedom of Panorama or not?[edit]


I uploaded a number of pictures of sculptures in the nl:Statenpassage, which is a space open for the general public, part of the Dutch Lower House (Tweede Kamer). Most of those are of sculptors that are long dead, but a few are of sculptors that are less than 70 years dead: File:TK statenpassage Alberdingk Thijm 1.JPG, File:TK statenpassage Alberdingk Thijm.JPG, File:TK statenpassage Hol.JPG, File:TK statenpassage Kappeyne 1.JPG and File:TK statenpassage Kappeyne 2.JPG. I strongly suspect that such a public space (part of the publicly accessible area of the National Parliament, although behind security measures) would be a public area in the sense of the Freedom of Panorama exception, the same way that train stations are. But it would be nice if someone could confirm :) Thanks! Effeietsanders (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Birds from flickr[edit]

Are File:Birds of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks ((197-?)) (20385349735).jpg and the other once really free? Just because someone at flicker flickr wrote "Taken circa 1825" dont makes them free. It even says "Published [197-?]". Shouldnt that be checked before? And the bot makes it flagged as being correct right away. Ping . /Hangsna (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

For the copyright background you can check the catalog page. If there are restrictions on the copyright they should be mentioned there. Dick (Richard) Follett seems to have been a ranger at Yellowstone at the time, with credited photographs being used either directly from the NPS archives or photographers that were NPS employees, such as Robert Gildart. For these reasons I believe that {{PD-USGov-NPS}} can be added as a more detailed license.
If you still have doubts, feel free to raise a DR and we might get others to take a look. In the meantime I have created Category:Birds of Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and fixed the date, which is a problem with the Flickrstream in general.
P.S. Ironically "Flicker" is the bird in the photo, while "Flickr" is what you probably meant. :-) -- (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ruth Roman press photo[edit]

Request to have someone review another press photo before upload. --Light show (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Retroactive copyright term extension for photographs proposed in Argentina[edit]

In Argentina, a retroactive copyright term extension for photographs has been proposed. Since Commons requires that non-US works be free in their country of origin in addition to being free in the US, it seems that this would impact the ability for certain photos to be included on Commons. --Gazebo (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright status of images of paintings licensed by the artist[edit]

File:Nahem Shoa next to his Giant Portrait of Ben, Hartlepool Art Gallery.jpg is one of several photos of paintings by artist Nahem Shoa for which the artist sent OTRS declarations granting license for their use (including on Commons and Wikipedia). The files have been flagged with the OTRS ticket template reflecting that Shoa's declarations were received and evaluated. OTRS staff then asked for declarations from Arttalk1984, who took the photos, clarifying that they also licensed the photos (even though Arttalk1984 was the uploader); these latter emails have been received but apparently not yet reviewed.

Mhhossein nominated the file for deletion on the basis that it is "Clearly a derivative and not a 'de minimis' case for someone else's work." They have ignored my pointing out that the artist who created the painting in the photo licensed it as proved by the OTRS template, and are instead repeating their accusation on Wikipedia. Is there something I can do here, or can someone Mhhossein might listen to possibly explain to them that the nomination was not appropriate for the reason given? —GrammarFascist (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Situation has been resolved by administrator intervention. —GrammarFascist (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Help determine the copyright status of an image[edit]

I need help determining if a photo of Amy Elizabeth Thorpe on zh.wikipedia (zh:File:Wedding_portrait_of_Amy_Elizabeth_Thorpe_1930s.jpg) where it is currently tagged as fair use is actually PD. The source of the photo listed is World War II Database. Any input is much appreciated. --Wcam (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A wedding photograph is probably rarely published. File:Amy Elizabeth Thorpe FBI wanter poster.jpg reveals that the picture was distributed on a poster by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. However, per w:Pushman v. New York Graphic Society, Inc., Amy Elizabeth Thorpe might have become the copyright holder shortly after the photo was taken (if USA is the source country), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation probably didn't ask her for permission if the picture could be used on the wanted poster, so that probably didn't constitute publication. Unless it was published somewhere with permission from the copyright holder, the copyright expires in the United States 120 years after the photo was taken. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
That "wanted" poster looks more like a modern recreation by a blog. Modern Times computer font probably? In reading a little bit, I don't think she was ever arrested -- a "wanted" poster would indicate that charges were filed, and that sort of thing. It may well have been published a while ago, but probably not at the time it was taken (there was a Time article on her in 1963 it looks like and probably others then and later). So at the moment, we have zero information on its publication history, so there's really nothing we can base a PD claim on. The WWII database page does not give a source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Logo1 web.png[edit]

Uploaded as "own work", but no evidence is provided that the uploader and copyright holder are one and the same. Logo is being used at and it seems that holds the copyright of their logo per No. 17 Trade Marks. Since Prizeo is based out of Los Angeles, this may be too simple to be copyright protected and qualify as {{PD-textlogo}}, etc.; Otherwise, I think it should have "OTRS permission" from the company. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)