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.

Own work?[edit]

File:Iraq National Team Logo (2005).png are uploaded as "own work" while File:Iraq National Team Logo (2007).png, and File:COA of Iraq (1965).svg is uploaded as "PD-self". The first two might be simple enough for {{PD-logo}}, but they don't seem to be "own work" if that implies the uploader created the images and is the original copyright holder. The description for each file says it is the logo that appeared on the shirts worn by the Iraqi national football team during a particular tournament, which seems to imply that copyright is owned by whomever runs Iraqi football. Shouldn't a source be need in such cases? The 1965 logo licensed as "PD-self" also seems incorrect because that also implies that the uploader created the logo or holds the copyright on it. Perhaps this is acceptable under another free license, but it seems that the copyright holder would be the Iraqi Republic or whomever created the logo and not the uploader, wouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Pinging the uploaders @Hashim-afc, Nopira: for clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I made the first two logos myself on Microsoft Paint to replicate the ones the Iraq team wore because I thought they were {{PD-logo}}. If they were listed as own work and the author was listed as Iraq FA rather than Hashim-afc, would that be alright? Or would that not make sense. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification Hashim-afc. I believe that re-creating the logos might make them either a derivative work or just a simple copy, but that depends on the original logo and how creative you were in re-creating them. Someone else will correct me if I'm wrong. They may be simple enough for PD-textlogo, but that might depend on Iraq's COM:TOO. Did you see these online? That may help figure out who the copyright holder/creator is. Since they seem to be former logos, maybe there's an archived version of the Iraq FA's website which shows them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I based them off of these two pictures: (the picture I based the logo off of was better quality but I can't find that one at the moment)
and this:
As you can see the logos I created and uploaded are based off of the ones the Iraq team wore. Hashim-afc (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the links Hashim-afc. I've been trying to find better versions of these to use as the source. It looks like the files are true reproductions of what is shown on those shirts, so they're probably not derivative works. The logos look simple enough to me to be PD-textlogo, but it might be a good idea to see what some others have to say. If, however, they are above the TOO and not PD-textlogo and are also not old enough for some other type of public domain template such as {{PD-Iraq}}, then they probably will need to be treated as non-free, unless the copyright holder agrees to freely license them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Marchjuly. I found a better link for the first logo:,0,350x237/ It's a better quality image than the previous one. I also think they are both PD-textlogo because both logos are made from the Iraq flag and other simple shapes, and the Iraq flag itself is in the public domain I believe. Hashim-afc (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The photo you've linked to is a little better, and it looks like the same logo, but I cannot tell for sure. There's also no way to really tell when the photo was taken and if it was used in that particular tournament. A source which not only clearly shows the logo, but which can be dated, etc. would probably be better. The association's official website only has archived versions going back to November 2011, but website addresses do sometimes change. Do you know whether another website address was used prior to 2011? If nothing better can be found and you feel this too simple for copyright protection, then I guess you can be bold and just change the licensing yourself. I think that should be fine assuming good faith, but there's no 100% guarantee that it will never be challenged by someone else. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The official website used to be called, so maybe the logo is on one of the archived versions of that URL. The first picture I sent you (the really bad quality one) was a screenshot from a video of Iraq playing in the 2005 West Asian Games final, so I guess that particular source can be dated, but unfortunately it doesn't show the logo very clearly. I've been looking for better quality images but can't find any at the moment. I will change the licensing myself now, and will continue to look for better quality image. Hashim-afc (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Logo for a government agency[edit]

Is it acceptable and legal to upload the logo of a government agency? The particular agency that I have in mind makes its logos freely available at their website. Thank you for your guidance on this. Nolabob (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nolabob. Does "freely available" mean freely licensed or free to download? There is a bit of a difference between the two. There's lots of content on the Internet that can be downloaded for "free", but not all of it has been freely licensed by the copyright holder. Some governmental logos are also considered to be in the public domain, but I think this varies from country to country. Perhaps you can provide a link to the website, so that someone can verify the licensing of the logo? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Marchjuly. Here is the link, per your suggestion. Looking forward to reading the guidance on this....Nolabob (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nolabob:, thank you for the link. As it happens, these logos are freely available for download on the website but there is no free use licence to be seen so we cannot simply host them at Commons. We need to do some further analysis: The logo for Louisiana Cultural Vistas [1] is not a problem because it consists entirely of plain text and cannot be copyrighted. You can upload this one with a licence {{PD-textlogo}} but you should also add {{trademarked}} to be on the safe side.
The other logos involving graphic elements, however, are a bit tricky. The book-shaped parts in the LEH logo may already be copyrightable and the pelican in Know Louisiana is definitely original enough for copyright. Also the Prime Time logo appears to be copyrighted, wich makes the latter three logos unavailable for Commons. But you can still upload them locally at the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale provided that they are all used in the context of a Wikipedia article. De728631 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the analysis. If I'm understanding you correctly, I could use these logs for a Wikipedia article but not upload it into Wikimedia Commons. Is that correct? Nolabob (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi again Nolabob. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but basically I agree with what De728631 posted. The "Louisiana Cultural Vistas" logo can be uploaded directly to Commons. You can find out more information on how to do this at COM:UP and COM:UH. As for your question about Wikipedia, it does allow certain copyrighted content to be uploaded as non-free content, but there are quite a number of restrictions placed upon such usage. It's hard to say whether a particular non-free file would be acceptable without knowing more, so please read through those pages I linked and if you have any questions then feel free to ask them at en:WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Great! Thank you to you both. You've been most helpful. I will proceed.......judiciously. Nolabob (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Panorama Rights in Belgium and deleted files on Commons[edit]

Since a couple of weeks, Belgian law changed and now, there is no copyright anymore on works in public space. Fortunately, an amendment to restrict the freedom of panorama only for not commercial use, has been rejected, so any picture taken in public space "that respects the work" can be published in agreement of the norms applied by commons. In the past, some of the photos I downloaded on Commons have been deleted, in application of the now obsolete law. Can you restore this deleted files? That would be very fine.--Flamenc (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we should wait untill the law has been published in the Belgian official journal. Natuur12 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this change retroactive too? If not, it would only affect new uploads taken after enactment of this new law. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd guess it would only affect possible *infringements* after the law takes place -- whether that is old or new photographs. It would be pretty nonsensical to base such infringements on when the photo was made. But we'd need to look carefully at any transitional provisions or other wording in the new law to be sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Normally, the date of creation only matters if you want to sue the photographer for violating your copyright by taking a photograph. If you prefer to sue a publisher for violating your copyright by publishing a photograph, then this would probably instead depend on when the publisher published the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
And suing the photographer for *taking* the photo I'm guessing would almost always be a losing cause -- there are always exceptions to copyright for certain uses (Article 22 in the Belgian law) and the photographer could always simply use them under those limitations (such as for private use). It is only when the photo is used outside of those limited uses when it becomes a true copyright violation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Law approved 16 June 2016, see the text (in Dutch & French). No restrictions mentioned, so it seems "old" photographs are allowed too. Vysotsky (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like full FoP, though Google Translate seems to indicate it is for works *designed* to be in public -- so a work which was note made to be permanently public but then made permanently public by someone else may be different. But it's a significant change from the looks of it. I think we do want to wait until the law actually takes effect though -- sounds like there is approval from the King and being published in the official journal before that can happen, at least. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Moving to commons older non-free revisions[edit]

A file on en.wp has two revisions, the older of which has a licensing problem (resolved by cropping out the offending element to make the new revision). Should both be moved to commons, with the older one again deleted (in case the uploader does provide a license for the full first image, we don't have to run around en.wp to find it and send it here to commons)? Or only actually move free to commons (not polluting here with nonfree, even if never visible)? en:File:Andres Neumann, 2016.jpg (see also its deletion-discussion via talkpage if you want details). DMacks (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

When I'm moving from it only transfer the last version. I believe it is the same with -- Geagea (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • DMacks, w:WP:F8 only covers those revisions which have been moved to Commons. If there are revisions which are not on Commons, then those do not qualify for deletion under F8 unless they are of reduced resolution. Instead, you would need to find another deletion reason for those revisions, for example w:WP:F9. Old free revisions can be uploaded to Commons using toollabs:magog/oldver.php (to which there is a link from w:Template:Now Commons) upon which they will qualify for deletion under F8. Old non-free revisions should not be uploaded to Commons. List old non-free revisions at w:WP:FFD if you can't find a speedy deletion criterion for those. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The older one was already deleted on en.wp as license violation, and if I were also transferred to commons, I would promptly delete it here for that reason as well. But the new one traces back to the old one as its source. Essentially, editing the non-free one made the derivative free (this licensing situation is based on w:WP:AFD--en:Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_April_14#File:Andres_Neumann.2C_2016.jpg if you're interested). The reason I was thinking about transferring the old one also was to make the attribution path simpler, rather than having the history become split across two different projects. But the cost would be transfer (and then immediate deletion) of that non-free original. DMacks (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Info about Reiss-Engelhorn Museum (REM) of the City of Mannheim v. Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

Dear all,

Unfortunately, we have some bad news to share. The Landgericht Berlin, the German trial court in the Reiss-Engelhorn Museum (REM) of the City of Mannheim v. Wikimedia Foundation case, has ruled in favor of REM. The case involved a request to take down several pictures hosted on Commons as public domain (most famously the portrait of Richard Wagner) that had been taken by a photographer employed by the museum. The museum claimed that the photographs taken by their photographer were copyrighted even though they were faithful reproductions of public domain works. We argued that the works contained no originality and not enough effort to justify even a limited German copyright, and further that the Museum’s rules prohibiting photography while claiming copyright on their pictures was effectively an attempt to create new copyright in works that belong to the public. The court held that the photos taken by the museum’s photographer are subject to German copyright protection, similar to any mobile phone snapshot regardless of the subject, and, therefore, are not in the public domain in Germany.

We think that the court reached the wrong conclusion and did not properly consider the harm of this holding on the public domain in a world where people experience and discover their culture online. Therefore, we plan to appeal the case to the Kammergericht Berlin, the next - but not yet final - level of appellate court above the Landgericht. The final level of appeal could then be the so called “revision” at the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), Germany’s Supreme Court - if the Kammergericht or BGH actually allow this kind of appeal.

However, there is some good news as well. The case against Wikimedia Deutschland, which was sued as part of the same case as the WMF, has been dismissed with the court properly understanding that it cannot force WMDE or its members to make changes to Wikimedia Commons.

With regard to the images themselves, the WMF continues to be of the opinion that we have the legal right to host the images on Commons for two reasons. First, we respectfully believe that the German court erred in its reasoning, which is why we’re appealing. And second, even if the pictures are considered to be copyrighted in Germany, the WMF continues to stand by our legal position that they are in the public domain in the United States, as explained on the PD-Art page. As such, we believe that the decision whether to keep the images in question remains with the community in light of this ruling. We will continue to support that decision, regardless of what the community chooses to do.

However, we would like to note that the community may want to update the tags used on the pages for the REM images, so that users in Germany have some warning that the trial court has ruled that they do not have permission to use the pictures there. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If Germany still protects X-Rays etc. with at least their simple photograph protection (which seems to be below the EU copyrightable level, but still can be protected country-by-country), I can see them similarly protecting such photographs. Sounds like we do need to update Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#Germany though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if they'd distinguish between a faithful reproduction made by photograph and a scan, since they can produce a similar result and only the technical method differs. Also, the ruling would presumably apply to all PD-Art photographs when used in Germany, regardless of country of origin, although the risk of being sued is probably less for foreign images. --ghouston (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
As I understand the German law (caveat, I'm not a German lawyer), they do distinguish between photographs and scans. So, the REM here got protection because they had an employee take photographs, but scanning an existing document in a printer doesn't create any new protection. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jrogers (WMF): It is possible to share/upload the court ruling? --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I've uploaded the German judgment to Foundation Wiki. Unfortunately, I don't have an English version of it. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
See Category:Images subject to Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit. Yann (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I see no special reason to react to this news in the short term. As the case will be appealed, so long as the planned appeal can be seen by Commons volunteers to be progressing in a timely way, and no other take-down notices are published using this case as a precedent, I believe that it is reasonable to take no overnight remedial action, such as changing templates or creating new templates for affected files.
I suggest that volunteers with the skills to make mass changes, step back and ensure there is first reasonable and conclusive on-wiki consultation with the project community, to ensure if action is taken it is agreed as necessary and sufficient. Perhaps someone could summarize this notice on the main VP and link here? visitors from discussions in other places are more likely to first look there. -- (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe there could be an elegant approach to make the museum's attempt to undermine public domain pointless. If I understand this correctly, they claim protection for the photographs of paintings as simple Lichtbilder. In Germany, this kind of related rights lasts for 50 years after first publication (not the full copyright protection of 70 years after the author's death). I wonder: Aren't there any reproductions of the images in question, e.g. the famous Wagner painting, that were first published more than 50 years ago? If they're reproduced in a book published prior to 1966, these older photographs/reproductions anyway wouldn't have the protection now claimed by the museum. Then, we could simply delete the scans in question and instead put scans of the older reproductions on Commons. On the other hand, this would mean accepting that protection, so maybe not a good idea... but it certainly would highlight the absurdity of the museum's approach, relying on protection of its own reproductions in order to try to "protect" from free use not only these reproductions, but also (or mainly?) the actual public domain works being reproduced. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The current policy on the PD-Art situation is that we use U.S. law only, not the law in the country of origin (once the underlying work is PD in the country of origin anyways). We don't have any real need to change that policy to keep these -- just update the PD-Art notes that such photos may be problematic in Germany. Right now it's "inconclusive", and this news would probably shade more to "not OK". Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Under Swedish law, there's a wording which is a bit unclear:
Av det anförda följer, att den som mångfaldigar en fotografisk bild genom fotografiska metoder icke åtnjuter självständigt skydd för sin insats; genom förfarandet har icke framställts någon ny bild. (SOU 1956:25 p. 471)

From the stated follows that the one who produces copies of a photographic image through photographic methods doesn't enjoy independent protection for his contribution; no new image has been produced by this procedure.

This could in my opinion be interpreted in two ways:
  • Protection is only granted if you produce a new image (so if the original is an image, then there's no new protection for the new photograph), or
  • Protection is only granted if you produce a new photographic image (so if the original is a photographic image, then there's no protection for the new photograph).
A photo of a painting is in my opinion a 'new photographic image' (the painting is not a 'photographic image' as the painting is not a photograph) but not a 'new image' (the painting itself already is an image), so the outcome could depend on how you interpret the quote I made. Does the same ambiguity also exist in German law? It seems that the Swedish photo law from 1919 largely were based on the German artwork law from 1907, and the laws might still be similar in a number of ways. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know Germany's 1907 law, but current German law apparently makes a distinction between "Lichtbildwerk" (a photograph that has full copyright protection as a work of creativity: 70 years after the creator's death) and "Lichtbild" (a photograph that is not a work of creativity, but more than a simple reproduction: protected for 50 years after first publication). It seems that the museum and the court in this case assume that photographs of paintings, due to the skill and labor involved, are not just reproductions (such as a photocopy), but protected "Lichtbilder". However, it doesn't seem that the museum has ever gone so far as to claim that these photographs would even qualify as "Lichtbildwerke" with full copyright protection. Myself, I'm from Switzerland, where we don't have this kind of "Lichtbild" protection (either a photograph is fully copyrighted, and for that it must be an "individual expression of thought", or not protected at all). Gestumblindi (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The rule under Swedish law is that it needs to be a photograph and that it needs to be an image, but originality is not needed for copyright protection. It is my understanding that German law works the same. The document I linked to discusses when Swedish law thinks that something is a photograph and when something is an image, and I'm wondering if German law uses the same definitions. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • According to section 52 of [2], it would seem that an EU person who wishes to sue an EU website can choose to sue in any EU country he wishes (provided that the website doesn't use geoblocking which makes the website unavailable in that country). However, according to section 68 of the same ruling, the court must not apply a more restrictive law than the law of the country where the website host is located. In this case, it seems that an EU person (a German museum) has sued a US person (the Wikimedia Foundation) in an EU country (Germany). Does it make any difference that the United States is not a member of the European Union? If not, then I'd imagine that the museum is free to sue the Wikimedia Foundation in Germany but that the German court can't use a law which is more restrictive than United States law. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


Ontario_PC_Logo_2016.svg is not under the CC license, and while it may have been vectored by the original uploader, that doesn't make it free of rights. In my opinion, is too complex to be text-logo. --CoolCanuck eh? 23:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've changed it to PD-textlogo, since I believe it fits. Canada's threshold is quite high, so I believe you are incorrect (as did community consensus). Storkk (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Jubilee Line 1983 Stock.jpg[edit]

According to the file description the licence is CC-BY-SA, but the source page says CC-BY-NC-SA. Is this all right? In the meantime the author could change the licence on flickr, so IMO it is all right, but I am not sure. --jdx Re: 11:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The license was reviewed in Feb 2011; it was CC-BY-SA then. If the author changes the license later, it does not affect Commons license. We are bound by the terms of the license available when the file was uploaded to Commons as CC licenses are irrevokable. Ankry (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Potentially problematic uploads by new user[edit]

I marked one of User:Illidansart recent uploads with no permission, but looking at his other uploads, it looks like it's not the only one with issues. Could maybe someone take a look at his recent contributions and see if many of them needs to be speedily deleted? TommyG (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:The Certificate of Pre 2nd Kyu in Japanese Kanji Examination.jpg[edit]

I am wondering if this file is acceptable as {{PD-self}}. This is a certificate for passing a certain level of the Japan Kanji Apptitude Test. The text written on the certificate basically just says who passed the test, what the test was for, when it was taken, and who gave the test. The boilerpoint text seems fine (the personal information has been whited out), but I am wondering if the design of the certificate is protected by copyright. The file's uploader Yappakoredesho has also uploaded a few more files of certificates/diplomas and Japanese currency as "PD-self" which does not seem correct, but I am not sure. Can photographs/scans of diplomas or currency (coins) be uploaded to Commons as "own work" and licensed as "PD-self"? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

UK Public domain...[edit]

Most of the news media in europe and US should have noted the UK voted to leave the EU,

This means that eventuially ( within 2-3 years) the following template cannot be reasonably applied to UK works Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure.

Thusly Over the next two-three years ALL the images using it will need to be partioned between UK and remainder EU works.

Nothing is changing overnight, but it might be worthwhile firming up the UK originating images ( English Wikipedia use PD-UK-Unknown or PD-US-1923-abroad).

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Such works should have been using {{PD-UK-unknown}} anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
On what basis?Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Also affected {{PD-anon-70-EU}} Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Same thing. PD-UK-unknown is the UK-specific incarnation of the general EU rule. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I must admit I didn't expect to be discussing the UK referendum on WP or Commons so soon after the event :-) If Carl is right, and I have no reason not to assume otherwise, then {{PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} need amending and the documentation updating to point out that they shouldn't be used for images originating from the UK. I think what has happened previously is that some users have gone towards a pan-European approach and used one i.e. EU set of templates for images from across the EU. Nthep (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Aside is that all Commons maps of the EU will need updating as well. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[edit] The license seems to be incorrect because A. V. Bitsadze was born in 1916, and the photo is alleged to be first published before 1923. The person on the photo is definitely older than 6. Abba8 (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2016 :(UTC)

The file may be in public domain in Russia if it was created more than 70 years ago and is anonymous. I am less sure if it is in public domain in USA as it may be affected Commons:URAA. Ruslik (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Might be a Georgian photo. Both countries may have been 50pma at the URAA date. If the person pictured was below 30, it may still be OK. And if uploaded by a family member... they may have the right to release to the public domain in the US. Technically, the file is marked as "PD-US", which is not PD-1923 but rather a catch-all for a number of reasons why it could be PD, not necessarily 1923 alone -- that "often" is the reason according to the tag, but not always. It's preferable to have a more specific reason, but older uploaded files may still have such tags, and there are certain situations where it's certain to be PD for one reason or another but not enough evidence to know which one, so the tag still has some uses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Screenshots of hacked websites[edit]

Are screenshots of hacked websites like this one (from which is currently hacked as I'm typing this) somehow copyrightable? If not, what free license applies to them? Thanks. Brandmeister (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I'd assume they'd be copyrighted by the hacker, or both hacker or source website if the "hacked" page is still very similar to the normal site. Theoretically, a copyright claim may get thrown out in court because of ex turpi causa non oritur actio but that's theory.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • My understanding is that if the hacked page contains simple text, then it's Template:PD-text and if there are copyrightable images (either with text or standalone), then the screenshot may be copyrightable. Brandmeister (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
      • It depends on how much text. It seems in many cases, like this one, the hacker is going to use images of unknown or third-party origin.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"Public domain" vs. copyright tag[edit]

I have a question about this image of Triturus karelinii, which I uploaded a while ago but am still not quite sure aboutː The original page on CalPhotos it was published on clearly states the picture is in the Public Domain, and goint to the author's page on the website also shows he uploads his photos with a default Public Domain license. The image however still has a (c) tag in its metadata and on the photo itself. Does that compromise the Public Domain release? Is Commons OK with having (c) tags on photos if there is a free license? --- Tylototriton (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I think such EXIF data are sometimes added automatically? In that case they would not be really informative about the copyright status of the image.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
He may have added the notice earlier, then decided to release it to the public domain later. However, the page does *not* specify CC0, so you should not use that license -- use {{PD-author}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Ceres solarsystem.jpg[edit]

On File:Ceres solarsystem.jpg, the original image from Flickr, which is licensed with CC-BY-2.0, does not have the planets' names on it. The version uploaded does have the names on it, and comes from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which has the copyright symbol at the bottom of their page. Is the addition of text enough that CBC has the copyright of the image? Elisfkc (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Not for the U.S. (see Darden v. Peters), and I would doubt Canada. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Israel images[edit]

Do the images from the Prime Minister of Israel flickr account qualify for PD-IsraelGov? Elisfkc (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

What part of that tag do you think might apply? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I am guessing they were asking if something like PD-USGov applies to that account. I don't think that such a rule applies to Israeli government works.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was exactly what I was thinking. Elisfkc (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Keith Waldrop.jpg[edit]

I posted a photo for Wikipedia use some years ago. Various poetry publications keep using it and not attributing it to me, which is what we (you all and I) agreed to. Is there anything we can do? I almost want to get all these publications to use my name because it keeps happening and if it's so good, I'd like some credit, at least. Atrivedi (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You can send them a message reminding them of the requirements of the license, escalating up to a DMCA notice or even lawsuit if you feel like it and they aren't interested in doing this the nice way. Even a periodical should be able to include credit and apology in a future issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
THANK YOU! Atrivedi (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Uploading 1906 work-for-hire document image[edit]

I want to upload this image of a w:Message in a bottle. It is a post card printed in 1904-1906 by the Marine Biological Association in Plymouth, U.K. (click for article).
It appears to be a work-for-hire rather than a personally-owned creation of researcher w:George Parker Bidder III (died 1954; life+70 = 2024 unfortunately), and it may even lack the "modicum of originality" needed for copyright protection in the first place.
Does copyright law prevent its uploading to WM? Sorry, but as a Yank I'm not familiar with British copyright law, if that is what governs. Please advise. --RCraig09 (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding anthems to the {{PD-RU-exempt}} list.[edit]

The copyright status of government anthem in Russia, is one of the issues touched upon in the recent First National Anthem Of Ingushetia undelete discussion I am proposing that "anthems" be added to the state symbols and signs list. This is based on text from:

The "Public Domain. Textbook." by Sudarikov S.A.
"In the Russian Federation in the first category of un-copyrightable objects are ... state symbols and signs (flag, emblem, anthem, awards, banknotes and other signs)"
Untranslated text - "Aвторские Права. Учебник. Судариков С.А.":
"В российской федерации к первой категории неохраняемых авторсим правом обьектов относятся ... государственные символы и знаки (флаг, герб, гимн, ордена, денежные и иные знаки)"
LINK Rybkovich (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Text logos & TOO France[edit]

Wanted a second opinion on whether these text logos would qualify as too original for the French threshold of originality czar 18:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

File: THTR-1986-Heske.pdf[edit]

Ich wurde auf diese Diskussionsseite verwiesen. Meine Frage:

Ich habe vorgestern ein Dokument aus einem behördlichen Vorgang von 1986 in die Commons hochgeladen, welches ich über das Umweltinformationsgesetz von der NRW-Atomaufsichtsbehörde erhalten habe (THTR-1986-Heske.pdf). Es handelt sich um Details zu einem Störfall im Reaktor THTR-300 vor 30 Jahren. Auf Einsicht in das Dokument hat gemäss UIG jedermann kostenfrei Anspruch. Daher gehe ich davon aus, dass ich es auch verbreiten darf. Ist das richtig ? Das Dokument, dessen Inhalt - ausser über UIG-Anfrage, s.o. - nicht zugänglich ist, ist z.B. für den Artikel THTR-300 wichtig. Der Inhalt des Dokuments ist nämlich recht brisant: Nachdem ich es im Literaturverzeichnis des THTR-Artikels mit dem Hinweis: "Zugänglich über UIG" aufgeführt hatte, bekam ich sogar eine Vandalismusmeldung auf den Hals mit der Vermutung, das Dokument sei nur erfunden.--Rarian (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)