Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/09

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


If missing, licensing to CC0?

I've heard about some automatically copyright for images if no present (creator/uploader don't give one to "own work"). But I don't belief it is {{CC0}}. Can someone say what would be the right copyright about File:Abtswind Logo.svg, besides the fact that it is a coat of arms and not a logo. User: Perhelion 10:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Perhelion: Other version of this CoA uses {{PD-Coa-Germany}} and I bet this is the right tag. --jdx Re: 11:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: Yes but this was removed by the same user. Anyway can the CC0 tagged by a second user for own work? Must it not be more like {{PD-ineligible}}!? User: Perhelion 12:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: As we can see there, it allows also a license {{PD-ineligible|license}}, so a COA can also have an authorship license!? User: Perhelion 12:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
In this case, we also need to recognize the SVG computer code unless the image was entirely transferred by an automated programme. So while the depiction of the coat of arms is in the public domain per {{PD-Coa-Germany}}, it is totally ok for the uploader to release their SVG file under a CC-0 license. De728631 (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@De728631: Ok, thanks for clarification. But anyway there is no evidence and plausibility that this is a logo for everyone (s. MaxxL talk) there must be a clear declaration from the municipality for these extreme singularity (of small municipalities). If any, this file should be called "logo sign" or "coat of arms logo", because it really don't looks like a logo (also if evidence were present). User: Perhelion 14:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, we could use {{Copyright information}} like
Creative Commons CC-Zero This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Public domain This file depicts the coat of arms of a German Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (corporation governed by public law). According to § 5 Abs. 1 of the German Copyright law, official works like coats of arms are in the public domain.

Note: The usage of coats of arms is governed by legal restrictions, independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here.

Wappen Deutschlands
and I agree that this is not a logo. De728631 (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The Mayor of Abtswind himself declares this rendition as the logo derived/simplified from the official coat of arms. -- MaxxL - talk 15:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: ↔ User: Perhelion 20:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Grace's Guide PD Images

I've uploaded File:Little Basses Reef Im1876ev22-p355.jpg which is the first time using PD templates. Can someone check I've done things correctly or should I just add {{LicenseReview}} to have it checked instead...Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If it was published in 1876, it is in public domain, of course, but you better to find the book. Ruslik (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
A work published in 1876 in a life+70 nation is not certainly in the public domain. w:Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov died in 1946 and apparently published minor works before then; w:George Bernard Shaw died in 1950 and "Lee found a little work for him, ghost-writing a musical column printed under Lee's name in a satirical weekly, The Hornet" circa 1876. Searching through deaths in w:1946 in literature and later years, those were the best examples I found, so it's marginal, but not impossible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, will add a link to the publication...--Jokulhlaup (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Steve McQueen & Ali MacGraw press photo

Can someone please review this press photo from 1972, in which they are apparently showing up at some event after the release of The Getaway (1972). It includes the front and back with source details.--Light show (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hrrrrrrrrm. There are a lot of "one copy only" stamps. That sort of implies that copy was leant to make further copies and then returned. That may get into the area where "general publication" vs "limited publication" were a little bit different definitions based on judicial circuit, and this gets a bit grayer if that was truly general publication. Borderline. If it was only used internally at Globe pictures to make further copies so that only those others were distributed, this may not mean lack of notice. Seems unlikely, but still possible -- there are no markings of a second company. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Some other info about the event is here, which says an almost identical shot was taken during American Film Institute Salute to James Cagney at Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles. So the one in question one was also likely by the same photographer, Ron Galella. I found only 2 unrelated photos copyrighted by him since 1978. Getty only rights-manages his candids like this one.--Light show (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Lee Grant - press publicity photo, 1975

Can I get a review of this photo from 1975? It shows the front and back with lots of dates, image printing sizes and even a page location. --Light show (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Jules Feiffer - press publicity photo, 1976

Here's a photo of Jules Feiffer from 1976, that needs a review. It shows the front and back, including a newspaper clipping and date. --Light show (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Madeline Kahn press and publicity photos

Can some review this photo of Madline Kahn from 1979? It shows both sides with details about where and when used. The PD notice would fit the PD-US-1989 description.

The dates on the back imply it was printed on at least three different dates.--Light show (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Other images would be this one from 1983 and another from 1987.

Also came across this one from 1983, a publicity photo for her own sitcom, Oh Madeline. The photo at least doesn't have watermarks to deal with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light show (talk • contribs) 23:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The info on the reverse states that it was to be printed at 106% with 70 line screen, which was a standard halftone resolution for newspapers at the time. --Light show (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Her article, which had 53,000 viewers yesterday, really needs something better than the current non-free screen shot. --Light show (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

You also need to look for copyright registrations for 1978+ works. They could reclaim the copyright even if they forgot notices. And as usual we need evidence of distribution. If the notations were made by NBC / ABC (i.e. those copies were never distributed), it's not enough evidence. If you knew were the copy came from, that could also show it. It's also an area where judges more often look to find reasons to rule that the copyright was preserved, so you'd prefer to have really solid evidence. Those are all fairly like to be PD, but evidence-wise there no concrete indications (to my eye) that the copies were actually distributed to another party before 1989. Some have dates, but I don't see any indications of a newspaper etc. company which had them. The auction sellers don't disclose the source, so if anyone uses these images, they only have your uploaded images as evidence to avoid infringement (unless they go find and buy other copies which also have no notices but better provenance information). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I ran a search for any photos of her registered after 1978 and came up with nothing. There were 5 registrations for fabric patterns with her name. --Light show (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
In any case, per definition of "publication", such photos didn't need to be reprinted, or distributed. If they were "offered for distribution," that's all the law requires. Any actual proof of where or when it was reprinted is apparently unnecessary. --Light show (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
If you can show that this copy was offered for distribution, sure. I don't know how you tell the difference between a copy that was offered and one that was not. You have to prove it on this copy for the lack of notice on this copy to be meaningful. Also, keep in mind that your quoted definition of publication is only valid for acts 1978 and later -- there was no official definition earlier, but courts conjured up the distinction of "limited publication" (where lack of notice did not lose copyright) and "general publication" (where lack of notice did). The definitions were a little different between circuits, but those are statuses you need to prove for pre-1978 works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
All 4 of the images I linked are post 1978. --Light show (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix Smoking image

A portrait of Jimi Hendrix that I shot in my studio in London in 1967 has found itself on Wikimedia Commons as a free to download image. This portrait, as well as all the others I shot during the same session, is my copyright and should not be offered anywhere as a free image. I have no idea how it came to be on the Site or who might have uploaded it, but, as far as I am concerned it is an abuse of my copyright and should be removed. What do I do next? Thank you. Gered Mankowitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.M.Bowstir (talk • contribs) 09:55, 01 September 2016 (UTC)

See the deletion request Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimi_Hendrix_by_Gered_Mankowitz_1967.jpg Aa77zz (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@G.M.Bowstir: I propose to wait and see how this discussion goes. I think it will probably be deleted through that process, but if it's not you still have the option of filing a formal DMCA take-down notice (details here). Hope that helps, --El Grafo (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Photo from downunder and overseas


I got pictures, they have to my knowledge never been published, a few might be of interest for Commons, landscape, cars, events

Some taken during world war II in Australia.

Some taken in the USA, Canada and Ireland in the 60's and 70's

What would be the rule to apply, do that depend on the country where it was taken, or the author's country of origin and residence (Ireland).

Can they be imported freely or do I need some kind of family authorization or they can't be imported at all before some years,

preferred license would be CC-BY-SA.

I guess that the date of the author's death is important too.

Regards, --Cqui (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

File:2011 Abdullah bin Khalifa Al Thani.jpg

File is licensed as {{cc-zero}} and the description added by the uploader gives an author and a source, but I cannot find anything on the source's website about the copyright information of the photo. In fact, it appears that all the content on the website is copyrighted. A google image search shows that this may be a crop of another photo, but I'm not sure how of if that would affect its licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

By definition all works are copyrighted without exceptions. So, if there is no information about a free license on the website, the image is a copyright violation. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The uncropped photo on Commons is File:2011 Milipol Claude Gueant and Abdullah bin Khalifa Al Thani.jpg. The uploader uploaded other photos of the same event around the same dates in October 2011, credited the same way. The Commons versions seem to be the largest versions found on internet, but it's not really useful in these cases, given that they are sourced from the home page of an external website, where they can't seem to be found now five years later. You can contact the uploader and see what he/she has to say or tag the files as no permission. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
An archived version of the source website is here; I don't see that exact photo, though others from the same event it looks like, and no indication of CC0 that I can see. "Copyright © 2010 Tous droits réservés." It's possible that there was something on the web pages in those days, but the 2011 archive version of the website didn't seem much different, and those should have gone through a license review at the very least, and OTRS if no license was on the site. The uploader is still active though, so maybe they can be asked. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ruslik0, Asclepias and Clindberg for taking a closer look. I've posted at User talk:Copyleft#License verification, so perhaps Copyleft can clarify things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Non-free confusion

Hi, I cannot work out from our policies and guidelines whether certain images are permitted under what rules. For example they point out several difference between the US and elsewhere but give no indication as to whose jurisdiction carries the day - if copyright has expired in one place but may not have in another, is it OK to upload the image? Then again, fair use is sometimes acceptable on Wikipedia but not on the Commons (I think), but I cannot find clarification of this distinction on either web site. So, please, are the following images allowed on the Commons and on what grounds. If not, are they allowed on Wikipedia and on what grounds?

The following files have US specific license conditions:

This file is licensed under Creative Commons but apparently comes from a document less than 100 years old:

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Works must be copyright-free in their country of origin (generally the country of first publication) and the United States. The law in other countries is ignored; see Commons:Licensing. Fair use is not allowed on Commons (Commons:Fair use). If the above works were first published in the United States, then the licenses would seem to be fine. If they were first published in the UK (seems more likely), then they would need another tag. For the UK, if there is a named human photographer, that person would need to have died over 70 years ago, in which case the PD-old-70 tag can be used. If the photo was published without crediting a human photographer, then {{PD-UK-unknown}} probably applies. That cannot apply if there was a named author though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

How russians stole and deleted ukrainian cultural history

This is a typical event when a russian steal ukrainian photos of ukrainian opera singer and used them for his russian article instead. Then he deleted photos in ukrainian article about ukrainian opera singer.

Please, have a look:

1. I made in ukrainian wiki segment an article about ukrainian opera singer Vasyl Pazych and I used four photos of this singer in Commons storage for my article.

2. Russian user Dogad75 copied one portret of Vasyl Pazych' s photos which I used from Commons for my article to his Russian wiki segment:

3. Then the same russian user Dogad75 wrote Deletion requests on photos of ukrainian opera singer for Commons:,_%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%96%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BA.jpg,_%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%98%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

Bingo! This is all you need to understand about russians moral. All four photos of ukrainian opera singer were deleted! In this way russian user Dogad75 made two things: 1. Deleted visual history from ukrainian segment of wiki. 2. Stole ukrainian visual history and represent it as russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67maximov (talk • contribs) 20:56, 03 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into this. The files were deleted from Commons because they look like copyright violations. Looking at the first one only, I would tend to agree: it looks like a publicity shot, of which the uploader is unlikely to be the copyright holder. Russian Wikipedia appears to have a fair use policy that allows uploading such unfree images under some conditions. The good news for you: Ukranian Wikipedia also has a fair use policy. I don't speak the language, but I suppose you do. If you follow the conditions outlined on that page, you can upload the picture to Ukrainian Wikipedia. --rimshottalk 21:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)(talk) 22:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Just take into your attention:

1. the question about UKRANIAN (not RUSSIAN!) singer which works in National Opera of Ukraine (Kyivsky opera theater) 2. the photos were standard photos which made in the opera theater for every singer by opera theater' s phographer 3. the photos were uploaded by National opera of Ukraine' s worker 4. the photos was deleted by request of russian and before it copied to russian wiki storage and used for russian article. It made by the same person. 5. That person lied when he copied photos to russian storage: he wrote that it is the only photo available but in russian storage there was a photo already. So "fair use" is not followed apriori.(talk) 22:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)--67maximov (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

If they lied about the fair use criteria on the Russian Wikipedia, that is an issue for their project. Use on the Ukrainian Wikipedia should be left to them. For Commons, either way, we generally do not allow uploads of previously-existing (on the Internet) photos without additional confirmation of the license. This is the Commons:OTRS process; if that is followed by the copyright owner they will be undeleted then. This is true of most all publicity photos -- even if meant for editorial usage, they are still not "free" by our rules, so we would delete them without separate OTRS. Commons does not control what other projects do with their "fair use" policies, but we are not allowed fair use at all here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

I'm not experienced with copyright issues, so I'll raise an issue here. File:Wilson-downtown.jpg appears to have a false claim of "own work". It appears to have been taken from the company Emporis, which is known worldwide for images of buildings (and their images are for sale). See their image here. The uploader hasn't edited in almost a year and has uploaded several images with the claim of "own work". Sundayclose (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that's a pretty blatant copyvio. Emporis says it's a copyrighted photo by "Chris P." or "Patrish". Not easy finding sources for other uploads, but I nominated one and they all look a little suspicious (and a couple a lot). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Wrong licensing

ost, if not all, of the files which were recently RDed are published under a wrong PD license. For example, File:Flag of Jabhat al-Nusra.jpg contains a complex element which should published only if it's in public domain in its country of origin. File:Flag of Jabhat Fatah al-Sham.png has the same problem. Moreover, some of them are attributed to rebel/terrorist groups (see this). --Mhhossein talk 12:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

As I understand they are just texts, so they do rise above the threshold of originality. Ruslik (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Exactly! They can't be published under PD-text. --Mhhossein talk 13:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Singapore banknotes

Hello I tried to upload Singapore banknotes (Orchid) with the specific permission of the Singapore government to upload small pictures of these banknotes. The download tool yet prevented me to fully upload them due to "currency copyright". Does it mean it is really impossible to upload them, even with specific autorisation ? Thanks. --Bouzinac (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. Singapore currency is under copyright (Commons:Currency#Singapore) and I am doubtful that freedom of panorama would apply to such photos (Commons:Freedom of panorama#Singapore), seeing as coinage can be considered an "engraving". For permission, we'd need proof that you have a COM:L-compatible permission statement, say by an email to COM:OTRS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:Banco de imagens da Câmara dos Deputados CC-BY template with unknown version

What should we do with Template:Banco de imagens da Câmara dos Deputados which states that it is CC-BY but does not mention version? --Jarekt (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Ask them to specify which version, would be my first thought. If that doesn't work we'd have to delete them I suspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Érico:, you are the author of this template. Could you contact the copyright holder organization? --Jarekt (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Hong Kong 18-25 December 1941.png

File:Hong Kong 18-25 December 1941.png I think this is out of Canadian Gov copyright but would like to be sure. I request an assessment. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it is ok. Ruslik (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ruslik Keith-264 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Demokratikuskoalicio logo.svg

File is uploaded as "own work", but it seems to be the official logo used by the Democratic Coalition of Hungry. Is this simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}} or some other type of PD? There is a non-free version jpg version uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:Democratic Coalition.jpg which is probably not needed if the Commons' one is OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The "own work" and the license claims by the uploader likely refer to the svg version. The uploader has uploaded many other svg files. (Although I wonder if a file like File:Métro-BKV 04-locator.svg is really such a creative original svg work to justify a claim that it is copyrighted.) The reason why the uploader published his licensed version of the DK logo would be because 1) he considers that the original DK logo is not copyrighted and 2) he considers that his svg version is copyrightable. If the original logo is not PD, then the uploder's version can't be on Commons. I leave to other users to decide if the original logo is PD. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

head shots for clients

A client of my talent management company would like us to upload his headshot to his Wikipedia page. He's sent me a jpeg of the headshot. Can I upload it to Wikimedia Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anadroir (talk • contribs) 19:01, 06 September 2016 (UTC)

Most likely: no, not without the photographer agreeing to release the photo under a license that allows anyone to use, modify and redistribute the photo for any purpose, including commercial purposes. Please read Commons:Guidance for paid editors. LX (talk, contribs) 19:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't knew that someone who managed to be famous enough to have an own Wikipedia page needed a talent management company... this apart, it is always better to have the photograph publish his/her own work on Commons. --Cqui (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 07:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Betty Hutton, 1952

This PD image of Betty Hutton shows all relevant details, front and back. However, it still includes a red tag noting that it shouldn't be transferred to Commons. Can someone review it and allow it to be moved there? --Light show (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The investigation is still ongoing en:Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Wikiwatcher1 Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket # 2016081710012474 Request Deletion Reversal on file: "Yura_Min_&_ice_dance_partner,_Alexander_Gamelin.jpg"

Requesting reversal see ticket number above. Photographer released rights to this photo per email submitted to on August 17, 2016. In that email the photographer named me as her representative granting permission for me to submit any and all photos to the Commons for free use in the "public domain" of Yura Min & Alexander Gamelin taken by her on July 30, 2016 in Lake Placid, New York. I have record of the photographer's email which to the best of my understanding, followed the Commons' template for releasing copyright. I would greatly appreciate your attention to this matter. Thank you IceTwinsMom (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ticket has not yet been processed. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
:This section was archived on a request by: Wikicology (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Commons licenze

Moved from my talk page because I don't speak nor understand Italian. --Achim (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Scusa una cosa a riguardo del copyright non mi è chiara forse:

L'articolo32- bis , che qui sotto ti riporto, sottolinea per ben due volte: "i diritti di utilizzazione economica"!! quando io carico una mia foto di un quadro su commons non ho un ritorno economico. Perché non potrei caricarlo? chi ci sta guadagnando da questa mia foto? Ti giuro che tutti i miei caricamenti sono dovuti da questa mia incomprensione di fondo. Grazie

Art. 32-bis. ((I diritti di utilizzazione economica dell'opera fotografica durano sino al termine del settantesimo anno dopo la morte dell'autore.)) ----------------- AGGIORNAMENTO (14) La L. 6 febbraio 1996, n. 52, ha disposto (con l'art. 17, comma 1) che "I termini di durata di protezione dei diritti di utilizzazione economica delle opere dell'ingegno di cui al titolo I della legge 22 aprile 1941, n. 633, e successive modificazioni, previsti dagli articoli 25, 26, 27, 27-bis, 31, 32 e 32-bis della legge medesima, sono elevati a 70 anni." --Pensierarte (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Secondo COM:L, immagini che non possono essere usate a scopo economico non sono permesse su Commons. IL termine di durata di protezione deve essere scaduto prima che puoi caricare le immagini, a meno che non stiamo parlando di una fotografia di un opera d'arte di cui diritto di autore è gia scaduto, come descritto su {{PD-Art}}. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


This and File:MountOlivesHospitalFront.png were uploaded under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. The descriptions for each file say they were donated by the person who I guess is the photographer, whi can be contacted via the uploader. This did not really seem proper to me, so I tagged the files with {{No permission since}} because it seems OTRS permission is needed in such cases. If this was incorrect, please let me know and I'll self revert.

Also, I am wondering if the sign shown in "File:MountOlivesHospitalSign.png" can be considered to be protected by copyright. The same sign is shown in the photo of the front of the hospital, but that seems to be a clear case of COM:DM; however, the same cannot be said about the photo of the sign itself since showing it appears to be the primary reason for taking the photo. Can Commons except the photo of the sign even if OTRS permission (if necessary) is provided by photographer for the photo itself or is permission also needed from the creator of the sign? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The sign photo is clearly about the sign (front and centre etc.) so de minimis would not apply. And Commons:Freedom of panorama#Ghana suggests that FoP does not apply there. As for the first photo, I consider that a necessary but highly annoying (because it's bureaucratic and can trip up unwary users) aspect of our copyright policies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I've emailed the photographer, Ambrose Y., and the owner of the hospital, Dr. Kessie explaining the requirements. Ambrose is likely to give the copyright releases. Not sure Dr. K. will have time for it; he is so busy. I don't understand the the sentence beginning "I consider that a necessary ...". Is Dr. K.'s release necessary for the picture of the front of the hospital where the sign occupies only a few percent of the whole image? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
For File:MountOlivesHospitalFront.png, if permission can be obtained for the photo itself, and assuming that the sign is either uncopyrighted or de minimis, then it would appear that the photo could be uploaded locally to the English Wikipedia (which operates under US copyright law only.) If the hospital itself is a copyrighted architectural work, the license template {{FoP-USonly|Ghana}} could be used to indicate an architectural work that is covered by FOP in the US but not its country of origin. --Gazebo (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Queen Philippa of Hainault and her daughters Isabella, Mary, Margaret and Joan.jpg

Two questions:

  1. Should these reconstructions be considered as independent works of art or just (faithful) copies? In the first case this is copyvio because the author, who was a Brit, died in 1952.
  2. Did I specify the source(s) properly?

--jdx Re: 09:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there any photo of the original? Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It's unlikely; the chapel in question burned in 1834. I doubt whatever sources he was using would be exact enough to not consider this an independent work of art.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
If so, looks like it would expire in 2023 -- in both the UK and the US. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Given that the original is lost, any reproduction would take significant time and skill. Wouldn't that create a new copyright according to the UK's interpretation of the sweat of the brow doctrine? clpo13(talk) 15:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Прошу помощи

Вчера зарегестрировалась для участия в конкурсе. Авторство моих фото вызвало сомнение, а я, к сожалению, не могу ответить, не знаю, как и где. Мое имя Вера Калюжная, живу в Санкт-Петербурге, поэтому ник VekaSpb. Свои фото я размещаю на стоках, подписывая "Вера Калюжная" или "Vera Kalyuzhnaya". Могу доказать авторство любой загруженной фотографии, прислав исходное фото. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VekaSpb (talk • contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Эти изображения сейчас обсуждаются. Вы можите высказать свою позицию там. Также обратите внимание на Commons:OTRS/ru. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Saipa FC logo.png

File is uploaded and licensed as "own work", but that seems unlikely since the logo is being used by Saipa Cultural & Sport Co.. The question then is whether this is simple enough for {{PD-simple}} or if it should be treated as fair use. The same uploader has also uploaded File:Esteghlal Khuzestan F.C. logo.svg which seem likes fair use based upon this as well as a number of images of signatures such as File:Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel signature.svg and File:Hassan Ghazizadeh Hashemi signature.svg as "own work". How does Commons handle the signatures of (famous) individuals? Can autographs or simply just another person's signature be uploaded as one's own work? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Signatures have a guideline here. As for the Saipa FC logo, what is the treshold of originality for Iranian works? My impression from COM:TOO#Iran and the page linked therein is that the treshold may be too low for that logo to be free. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
COM:TOO#Iran is quoting a section from their trademark law and should not be there -- that has nothing to do with copyright. Their copyright law lists as copyrightable paintings, pictures, drawings, designs, decorative writings, geographical maps or any decorative and imaginative work produced in any simple or complex manner. I don't know if we have any court ruling examples of what would be above or below the threshold, or if they prefer that trademark and copyright not overlap (i.e. have a higher threshold for trademarked items), or judge them independently. Agreed that the uploaded works from this user should either have a form of PD-ineligible or be deleted. Some people think that "own work" means they did the work of scanning/vectorizing/uploading, when that is not the meaning at all. I'd probably change the signatures to {{PD-signature}}, and delete File:Esteghlal Khuzestan F.C. logo.svg. I'm unsure about File:Saipa FC logo.png... that probably would be PD-simple in the US (though moot because the US has no copyright relations with Iran), but little idea about Iran. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Jo-Jo Eumerus and Clindberg. "File:Esteghlal Khuzestan F.C. logo.svg" has been deleted as a copyvio, but still not sure how to proceed with "File:Saipa FC logo.png". It's obviously not "own work", so maybe taking things to DR might help clarify its PD status unless there is a better way to try and resolve this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright permission of Wikimedia screenshots with MediaWiki software

What is the status of screenshots such as File:English Wikipedia screenshot.png in regards to copyright permission? As Template:Wikipedia-screenshot mentions, the applicable licenses are CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL 1.2+ (with no invariants), plus GPLv2+ for MediaWiki.

However, GPL version 2 and 3 are incompatible with CC BY-SA 3.0 and earlier. CC BY-SA 4.0 is one-way compatible with GPL version 3 only. Is it not a copyright violation of MediaWiki's licensing to publish full-page screenshots of Wikimedia projects (except Wikinews and Wikidata), and if not how does the license upgrade from CC BY-SA 3.0 work for derivative works?

Per Commons policy Commons:Screenshots, Screenshots are derivative works and as such subject to the copyright of the displayed content, may it be a video, television program, or a computer program.

This is meta, so it may need to be cross-posted somewhere else for more discussion.

For consideration, there is no copyright permission from the uploader to resolve this question easily. 14:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The answer may lie in the following phrase: "This screenshot either does not contain copyright-eligible parts or visuals of copyrighted software ...". Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

GFDL 1.2

To be short, are images with this license (GFDL 1.2) allowed in commons? It seems as if I had the wrong idea about Commons:GFDL 1.3 relicensing criteria as I thought that any file not eligible to be relicensed is not valid. Could you confirm that GFDL 1.2 keeps on being a perfectly valid license regardless of the file with such a license being relicensable or not? Best regards --Discasto talk 12:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Discasto: Commons allows only free media files per Commons:Licensing. Derivative works must also be free per Commons:Derivative works. There's a list of free copyright tags at Commons:Copyright tags that can be used on works. You may want to be specific which version of GFDL is being referred to, and if there are invariant sections or not and if we are talking about "GFDL 1.2 only" or "GFDL 1.2+" (any later version). I have hard time understanding your question, so can you reference to the files we are talking about? 16:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm referring to images with a GFDL 1.2 license that does not fulfill the requirements for relicensing. For instance, photos first published under the GFDL somewhere other than a Wikimedia project, but uploaded to Commons after November 1, 2008. Has it clarified the issue? Thanks --Discasto talk 21:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
They are allowed. Please use {{GFDL-1.2}} or {{GFDL|migration=not-eligible}}. --Jarekt (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
However inappropriate the license is for photographic media, it still qualifies as a free license. It is discouraged for new (non-text) uploads, other than cases where it "naturally" occurs on the web, but it's still a free license per the definition. There are some who would prefer to disallow direct uploads using the GFDL license only, but to this point that has not gotten enough support to be policy. And such a move would be barring a free license -- we accept GPL too, even though that is also not really all that good for graphic works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I had definitely misunderstood the meaning and consequences of the re-licensing. Best regards --Discasto talk 09:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

File:NFABD Brunei.png

File is uploaded a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" and claimed as "own work". File says it is a vector version of the new logo of the en:National Football Association of Brunei Darussalam, but this cannot be verified on the association's official website. The earliest archived version I could find was August 2014, 3 years after the file was uploaded to Commons so I guess the badge/logo could've been changed again. File looks like fair use at first glance, but I'm not sure whether the individual elements would be considered too simple or too utilitarian to be copyrightable or whether being a vector version means it can be freely licnesed as "own work". -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC) images

This image:

has been taken from this site ( that has this licence: "NO rights reserved!":

But this image is free? All the other images form the site are free? Can all be added to commons?
I don't think so. So, the image must be deleted from commons?

--Arosio Stefano (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Arosio Stefano: (File is File:Nintendo Game & Watch Balloon Fight (Crystal Screen).jpg). The license is definitely not CC0 as indicated. I've added {{Copyrighted free use}} and tagged the file as needing license review. 22:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

File:David LaChapelle Tak pravil LaChapelle, Galerie Rudolfinum, Praha, 2011 12 13.JPG

I think the person who took this photo can license their photograph as "own work" since it involves a bit of creativity, but I'm not sure if they can license the artwork being depicted as "own work". The artist en:David LaChapelle is still living and I don't think the work itself is old enough to be treated as PD for age reasons, so I think it would still likely be under copyright protection, right? Also, even though the artwork itself is the focus of the photo, it is not a full-frame reproduction and it looks like it is being displayed within a 3D-frame. Would any of these things preclude the artwork itself from being licensed under {{PD-Art}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Gilroy Garlic Festival photos

In Category:Gilroy Garlic Festival, these images may have copyright issues:

  • If the mascot character in File:Gilroy Garlic Festival mascot July 2010.jpg is copyrighted, there may be an issue because the US does not have FOP for artistic works (in addition to the mascot being temporarily displayed as opposed to being permanently situated.) I do not know all the details about the origin of the mascot, but the festival Web site indicates that the Gilroy Garlic Festival was founded in 1979.
  • File:GilroyGarlicFestival2.jpg shows a display of shirts, including ones with artwork that is likely copyrighted. However, there may not be an issue given that it appears that the subject of the photo is of the display as a whole and not any one item of artwork.
  • In File:GilroyGarlicFestival3.jpg, it appears that the subject is a set of four signs with artwork on them. To be sure, it appears that the photo was intended to focus on the set of signs as a whole, and not on any individual sign.

Thoughts? --Gazebo (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The garlic mascot is definitely a problem. File:GilroyGarlicFestival2.jpg and File:GilroyGarlicFestival3.jpg fall under the questionable point 5 of COM:DM, with 2 being a bit closer to OK and 3 closer to not OK. -- King of ♠ 15:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

"In case this is not legally possible" provision in PD-because

In 2007, Rama added the In case this is not legally possible: The right to use this work is granted to anyone for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law text to {{PD-because}}. I think this doesn't fit the usual applications of this template (because in most cases, there is no one explicitly granting anything, but we assume that the image is PD for some reason), see Template talk:PD-because. I think we should remove the "In case this is not legally possible" provision from PD-because. It would be better to use other templates such as {{Copyrighted free use}} for cases like the one described by Rama; more input welcome. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That clause is worded as a license, so as far as I can see it should only be used if somebody has agreed to that license. However I don't think it should be changed, since it may be used on files where somebody has actually agreed to it. It would be better to make an alternative template(s) for files where that doesn't apply. --ghouston (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, bad idea to change it. It's OK to change templates for actual licenses because they all have a link to the official website/legal text, which serves as the authoritative version of the license. Here the license text is contained entirely within the template itself. -- King of ♠ 15:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hrm. Usually this is not a license that people "agree" to; rather it is stating why an image is public domain for a specified reason, and usually used by third parties. Most often, that is usually a reason why copyright has expired, for a reason we don't have a tag for. Rama's clause is really only for PD reasons where copyright has not yet expired by law, and those cases are better off using PD-author. But being a general-purpose tag, there could be usages which should be PD-author but aren't, and technically the clause is true if copyright has expired, though "granted" is not the best wording there. Maybe we could change the bottem section header to "If copyright has not yet expired by law and this is not legally possible,". Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Mort Sahl, agency publicity photo

Can someone review this 1960 image of Mort Sahl for upload? It shows both sides w/o a notice. It was put out by his talent agency, William Morris. He's 89, so a better lead image would be helpful. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Jules Feiffer - press publicity photo, 197

Would someone review this photo of Jules Feiffer from 1976?. It shows the front and back, including a newspaper clipping and date. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that looks pretty good. Be sure to credit the named photographer (that will affect copyright in other countries). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Lee Grant - publicity photo, 1975

Can I get a review of this photo from 1975? It shows the front and back with dates, image printing sizes and even a page location. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing these three. --Light show (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Files of User:CAPTAIN RAJU of Italian buildings

There is no freedom of panorama in Italy, so the copyright status of these files is undetermined. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Italy.

Files in User:CAPTAIN RAJU/Gallery 1 and User:CAPTAIN RAJU/Gallery 2 may be copyright violations and would have to be nominated as such. I have no way of nominating tens of files for deletion simultaneously and effectively. 00:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I also acknowledge that some of the files are public domain (author died over 70 years ago), but I believe files like File:Rome Termini.01.jpg, File:Termini Metro linea A & B Station.01.jpg File:Roma Trastevere railway station.01.jpg could be copyright violations (maybe partly de minimis). 00:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Diane James at Eastleigh.png

Non-free screeshot from YouTube licensed as " Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported", but I am unable to find such an indication on the source url or the YouTube channel's main page. The link provided to the YouTube help page does say that "YouTube allows users to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license", but it does not say that this particular video has been uploaded under such a license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I click on "Show more" under the "Published on Sep 15, 2013" and it mentions the CC-BY license. Probably should go through license review so it's tagged. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for checking Clindberg. I missed that so my bad. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

User page image use inquiry

I own an image of myself as a child taken by one of my parents back in the 70's. It features the back of my head with the city of Segovia, Spain in the background. I would like to use it as a user page image at Wikisource. If uploaded to Commons, what licensing template do I apply, and do I need to submit consent for use from a parent (as photographer). Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if your parent is still alive. If not, you as a heir, can license the image under any free license. Ruslik (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Gibraltar political party logos

File:New GSD Logo.jpg and File:Gibraltar Conservatives logo.svg were uploaded as {{PD-textlogo}} and {{self}}. They appear to logos used by the political parties Gibraltar Social Democrats and Gibraltar Conservatives. Does Gibraltar follow the UK copyright law when it comes to images such as these and if it does would these be considered to be below the TOO for the UK, which tends to be much lower than, for example, the the TOO for the US? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason why Gibraltar should not follow the UK copyright law. As to the logos, the second one is just a text with the party's name. The first one is more complex, so I am not sure. Ruslik (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Gibraltar applies UK copyright law, with some modifications.[1] For things like threshold of originality, it's possible there is a separate court history in a territory, but it's been a UK territory long enough that that's unlikely. The first one is likely above the threshold, in the U.S. as well, and the second is likely below in both countries (though really should not be "self"). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


This file's original upload revision displays non-free parts of a Windows product in violation of Commons:Screenshots guideline. Could someone hide the initial revision per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle? I'm not so much worried about the Aero theme, but the Internet Explorer logo and the whole work as combined. 15:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@ ✓ Done FYI, the template {{non-free frame revdel}} can be used for such requests... it's actually intended for photos of 'PD-Art', but it's quite clear what's being asked for. Reventtalk 18:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 14:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Royal Military College of Canada Rush Bagot Agreement.jpg

The photo comes from I was about to mark it as copyvio, when I found out that it is licenced under a free licence – on the author states My photos are freely available to whoever wishes to download them. I do ask that the words "Source:" be located under or near the photos. Which of our licence templates fits best to the author's statement? Is {{Attribution}} all right? --jdx Re: 06:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Ruslik (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --jdx Re: 20:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: jdx Re: 20:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

no author photo

I found a picture without known author. What can I do for use in a article on Wikipedia?--Burn to you (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Burn to you: {{Author|unknown}} or {{Unknown|author}} can be used, if the image is otherwise verifiable to be under a free license per Commons:Licensing and other policies. If you want to link the image/source, I can attempt to tell if it's good for Commons. 17:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You can see the picture in various sites here. Many Thanks.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burn to you (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Your link just shows a general Google search with lots of possible results. Could you please link to one specific webpage where the image is shown? And please note also what the IP user wrote: as long as there is no clear free licence, even anonymous images are copyrighted and non-free in most cases. De728631 (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that I do not know the primary source of the photo. It seems that there is none. So what link should give you? --Burn to you (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation: File:Elsie 13 Age.jpg

The attached picture appears to be copied from here: [3] and labeled up as "Own Work" by the uploader. It appears to be a copyrighted image. I only noticed it when someone posted a link to it on to enwiki. Nordic Nightfury (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying us. I have deleted the image as an obvious copyright infringement. Next time you notice something similar you can go directly to the file page on Commons. In the tools menu on the left edge of the screen there is a link "Report copyright violation". If you click this you can fill in your reasoning why the file is suspicious and can then mark the file directly for speedy deletion. De728631 (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I believe you need to enable the QuickDelete gadget here to get access to that. BMacZero (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes, thank you BMacZero. I forgot this was part of the gadget. But template {{Copyvio |1= your reason here ... |source= url where found the image elsewhere on the web }} placed manually on the page will do the same job. De728631 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@De728631:: Did you keep hold of the uploader's username per chance? It may be linked to an account on enwiki, I wish to investigate. Can you message me here, as I don't watch this page. Thanks Nordic Nightfury (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The uploader was ArcadeGo who doesn't have any contributions at the English WP. De728631 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Movie trailer screen capture

I'd like to know the basic guideline about capturing movie trailer images. Assuming that no copyright notice is seen, and they're pre-1978, or pre-1989 w/o registration, is it OK to use them? A few examples I've seen are this one and this one. Thanks for any feedback.--Light show (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but be very diligent in your search. -- King of ♠ 00:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


Photograph of a 3D-statue in the Philippines. I believe the photograph itself can be licensed as "own work", but not sure about the copyright status of the statue pictured. It's obvious that the statue is the focus of the photo so "de minimis" cannot be argued for it. Also, I don't believe there is any freedom of paranoia in the Philippines which would make the statue exempt from copyright protection as a piece of public art. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. De728631 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look De728631. I would've never thought of the gun the statue was holding of being a way to approximate the age of the statue. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

File:James Kerr-Lawson Lady-Paget.jpg

This is a painting whose maker died in 1939, and apparently in the public domain. It is from Canada (Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Canada). However the image was uploaded from which tagged it with a noncommercial-only license, and it even says 'don't remove this tag'. Is it public domain or not? Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The website you linked above is not accessible. Do you remember to archive it? Since I can't access the website at the moment, I can't really based my comment on that but generally, the © Copyright xyz. All Rights Reserved notice on websites can not be used to determine the copyright status of a particular work since the websites host different contents with diffenrent cpyright status and expiration date. In Canada, all photograph taken before 1 January, 1949 are in the public domain. In addition, since the author of this work died in 1939, the copyright would have expired on 31 December 1989.Wikicology (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikigallery is working for me. Although they have now put a public domain tag in the style of {{PD-old}} on the file page, the image itself is apparently just hotlinked from a commercial page. The painting, however, is in fact {{PD-Canada}} (the creator died more than 50 years ago) but we would have to check the publication history to determine whether it is copyrighted in the US. I suspect though it is {{PD-1996}}, and for the reproduction we could claim PD-art. De728631 (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

1924 Austrian movie poster

Can someone offer an opinion about this movie poster? It's a for a 1924 Austrian film. I'm also curious about other 1920s posters from Europe w/o copyright notices, to see if they are considered PD. --Light show (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

In the European Union, works are copyrighted for the life of the author plus 70 years. If the author cannot be determined, then the copyright term is 70 years from the date of first publication. So there is no general rule for the copyright status in the country of origin if you are merely looking for the age of the poster, but you need to know the lifetime of the artist.
The posters would also have to be out of copyright in the US to upload them here. That is somewhat easier: anything published before 1923 in the US or elsewhere is not copyrighted in the US. For later publications I recommend checking the Commons:Hirtle chart, section "Works First Published Outside the U.S. ...".
The poster you linked above, however, is not the original Austrian film poster but the American release poster by Film Booking Offices of America. It seems to be a separate design for the US market as opposed to the original Austrian version, so it has to be treated as a US work. I'll have to dig further into it, but I think there is a good chance that this falls into {{PD-US-not renewed}}. De728631 (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I searched the US copyright catalogs for 1952, 1953 and 1955 and couldn't find any renewal for this poster, so I'm going to upload it here as PD-US-not renewed. De728631 (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining and adding. --Light show (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


File was uploaded as "own work", but it looks like the official logo of Qmusic. The question is whether this would be considered to be below the TOO for the Netherlands. COM:TOO#Netherlands says "[For a work] to be eligible for copyright, it is necessary that the work has an own original character and bears the personal mark of the maker (...)" among other things, and the logo seems to be fancy version of the letter "Q", so it doesn't seem to have its own "original character". Should the licensing be changed to {{PD-textlogo}} or should this be treated as fair use? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

FOP in the US

According to COM:FOP#United States, there is no freedom of paranoia for buildings in the United States. My question is whether a structure such as a watertower like en:File:Peachoid-gaffney.png could be considered a "building" and be acceptable to move to Commons. The file is currently uploaded locally to Wikipedia as a non-free image, but it's non-free use does not comply with en:WP:NFCC#1. If the file could be converted to public domain in some way, perhaps as {{FoP-US}} then it would not be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policy. Any opinions on this would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to strike out "no" per below post. -- 22:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)]

I believe the relevant criterion is "structures that are habitable by humans", I don't think a water tower qualifies. But I think there was a misunderstanding on enwiki: the photographer has released his rights into the public domain (per the NFUR on enwiki) - so I would think it should stay on enwiki as Fair Use - no freer replacement can be created because of the copyright of the structure itself. I think Rwxrwxrwx's dispute tag is correct, but Owen1962's is not. Some relevant DRs: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Peachoid_water_tower_(Gaffney,_South_Carolina)_001.jpg, Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Prada_Marfa. Storkk (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look and the clarification Storkk. I think then a free license is needed, perhaps en:Template:Self, for the photo because it would seem to be a derivative work, but not sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
You probably meant that there is freedom of paranoia for buildings in the United States, without no? Ruslik (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Interesting concept. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you for pointing that out Ruslik0. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
There is FOP for buildings, not for sculpture. Things like bridges and water towers are probably not considered either, i.e. utilitarian and non-copyrightable. However... separable elements are always copyrightable. The paint job, the leaf, and other elements on that tower would qualify. But... I don't see how it fails NFCC#1. The photograph itself is licensed. There's nothing anyone can do about the copyright of the tower itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the info Clindberg. The NFCC#1 issue has been resolved thanks to the people here and some others on English Wikipedia. I had incorrectly added the tag because I mistakenly assumed that the FoP applied to such structures. Liscensing has been tweaked a bit so that hopefully the same mistake will not be made by someone else in the future. I appreciate all the help. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Photocopies of ancient books

I would like to upload 808 volumns of Imperial Encyclopaedia (古今图书集成, 1700-1725). (e.g. [4]) They are the scan of photocopies of the original books by the Zhonghua Book Company in 1934. The only thing added in 1934 is the cover. (Except for the first book, where there is a page showing its time of photocopying. Are they in public domain and can I upload them?--維基小霸王 (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I would say yes, according to Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs for the US (since a scan of a book is basically a "photography that carefully reproduce a two-dimensional public domain work"), but check also the paragraph of your country. --Scoopfinder(d) 11:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I can add that the correct template would probably be {{PD-Art|PD-old-100|country=XX}} where XX shoudl be replaced by the source country. --Scoopfinder(d) 11:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for advice. But is it possible that the cover is copyrighted? It is very simple (book title, press, basic content) and old (produced in 1934) though.--維基小霸王 (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
It might depend on the country, but if the cover is only made of text it might be ineligible for copyright and in public domain. See COM:TOO. --Scoopfinder(d) 14:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
A couple of countries have a "typographical arrangement" copyright -- but they are usually shorter. The UK is one such country but it lasts for just 25 years from publication. Seems unlikely that a version from 1934 would still be protected that way. I would only be concerned if they added any additional matter (forewords, annotations, etc.). And technically scans should use {{PD-scan}}, as {{PD-Art}} is more for versions made with regular cameras. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, thank you Carl, I didn't know this template existed. --Scoopfinder(d) 07:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Lil Dagover photo, 1930s

Could someone review this U.S. photo of Lil Dagover from the 1930s film I Spy? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Wish that showed better evidence that that copy was distributed. On the other hand, that is probably {{PD-US-not renewed}} either way, if you want to do the renewal searches. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Edward G. Robinson, Curtiz photo (ok)

Can someone review this 1937 candid photo which shows the reverse with newspaper clipping? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

That seems fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Olivia de Havilland, 1939

Can I get a review of this image, which shows both sides? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a foreign language on the back... was that distributed in the United States? Many other countries did not have the notice requirements so I'm not so sure on this one. All the notice stuff is for works which were obviously distributed in the United States. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Post-1922 atlases at The New York Public Library

@Revent: The New York Public Library has four more Bromley Land Books of Manhattan (in edition to 1955–56, which is already on the Commons) that are labeled "Free to use without restriction". The only original registration I have been able to find is for Vol. 3 of the 1930 edition (the Land Book is a union of five volumes): <;view=1up;seq=471>, for which I found no renewal (A20286).

The library gives two issue dates for the 1921 edition: 1921 and 1923.

The 1921 and 1925 editions have no apparent copyright mark on them. The 1927 and the 1930 are marked copyright in their respective years.





I'd like (eventually) to upload them all. If I do, what copyright tag would be appropriate? Thank you for your advice. Vzeebjtf (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

For 1921: {{PD-1923}}. For 1925: {{PD-US-no notice}}. For the other two, {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the internet archive scan (where it's also poorly printed) I think the 1930 registration is actually A20296. I'll look for a renewal under either. Reventtalk 06:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Bit odd to search for this, actually, as the 1930 registration was 'published' under class F (maps), but 'listed' as a class A (books). By the late 1950s, class F registrations & renewals were no longer printed in part 1 with the books, but instead in part 6. Checking the years 1957-1960, for both class A and class F shows no published renewal, while showing that the publisher was still active and filing new registrations at that time (so it clearly would have not been filed by a 'successor' to the rights, as they were still extant). 1930 is definitely 'no renewal'. Will look for 1927. Reventtalk 06:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Vzeebjtf: Ok, after some (tedious) searching, the kind of answer I hate to give. It appears that the 1927 maps were 'published' with a copyright notice, but that the copyright was not registered within five years... it would still have been a 'valid' copyright, but unenforcable without a registration (which the USCO would not have easily accepted) sometime later in the initial term, and that seems quite unlikely. I think 'no renewal' is almost certainly correct. Reventtalk 07:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Vzeebjtf (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: You could register copyright any time in the first 28 years -- there would be no reason to reject it from the USCO. If you published with copyright notice, then it got federal protection -- you just got more if you registered (same as today). You do need to register in order to file a lawsuit, and you would be limited to actual monetary damages for copyright violations prior to registration (as opposed to automatic fine amounts), but they were still protected. You also did have to register in order to renew, but it was possible to send the registration along with the renewal 28 years after publication, if desired. The start date of the 28 years remains the date of original publication, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I'm aware you could register at any time in the first term... what I was referring to was that a registration after the first five years was not considered 'prima facie' evidence as to the facts claimed in the registration, so the registration would be 'less useful', and the USCO would probably have been more likely to question it. I did look for a renewal of the 1927 maps at the appropriate time, and did not find one... I'm not inclined, personally, so search another 20+ years of records manually for a registration that was probably never filed, and doesn't appear to have been renewed even if it was. By 'unenforcable', I did not mean that it was not copyrighted, just that you could not actually 'enforce' the copyright without registering the work. Reventtalk 09:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Ah, OK. The five year thing is geared more towards judges rather than the USCO -- but I think that has only existed in the law since 1978. The 1909 Act (which the authors here would have been operating under) had no such limit for the prima facie clause (sections 55/56 when enacted, 17 usc 209/210 later on). But yes, no real reason to search -- it would need to show up in renewals either way. The NYPL obviously made the same determination as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

File from Algeria

Hello how are you?. Is it possibile to upload files from here, and here.

The files are from Algeria, The file here citted Two Christian sisters. Kabylie, Algeria. ca. 1905 - 1920 || Vintage postcard; publisher Mission of the White Fathers, the other file do not mention the year is only mention Famille chrétienne de Grande Kabylie, but the picture is very old more than 70 year. It might be {{PD-Algeria-photo-except}}?.--Jobas (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if they were published in Algeria that long ago, they would qualify for {{PD-Algeria}} (or the one you mention) and {{PD-1996}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Errol Flynn 1950s

Can I get a review of an Errol Flynn photo from the 1950s? It was used for his obituary in some S. American paper. A search for any photos of him after 1978 came up blank.

BTW, this is from the same collector above for de Haviland's 1939 photo which was also reprinted in S. America. That seller collected old photos that were provided in press kits that studios sent out to Europe and S. America. The Flynn one at least shows all the U.S. info on the front. --Light show (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Distributing outside the United States does not mean anything (other than it was published). Copyright on that would still exist in some countries, even if it was an anonymous photographer. There is a clear copyright notice, but no year. If it was not renewed, it is OK. When was it first published? Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I only searched renewals since 1978, and the listing says it's from the 1950s.--Light show (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
But found this one from 1944, with better information. I searched 1971-1973 for renewals, (ie. sample search page) with nothing found. --Light show (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If it was published in 1950, then it could have been renewed in 1977. You are searching under "Warner Brothers" right? The listings go by the copyright owner name (or sometimes work title). Your link is not to that page. That's why you should list the names that you looked for. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Since the 1944 one has more details, and is probably a better photo, I just checked 1971-1973 under Warner Brothers and found only a single unrelated item. --Light show (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Threshold of originality of File:Foobar2000 v1.3.12 on Windows 10, with LibriVox audio books in playlist, "visualization + album art + tabs" view.png

There is a deletion request for this file about threshold of originality. I'm bringing this up here at village pump for more attention, as it is not an usual regular/non-controversial deletion request. Discussion at deletion request. WubTheCaptain (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum license

What is the current consensus on the non-commercial license under which the Imperial War Museum (in London, UK) releases its images? I have read this previous discussion from 2013, but am unsure whether it is OK to use images from the IWM collections or not (as opposed to the ones they released on Flickr)? Examples would be this and this. From what I can tell, the portraits in the collections are quite often ones that were purchased by the IWM at a later date from portrait photographers (i.e. commercial studios taking portraits of soldiers). I guess the copyright status of those is unclear. But what about something like this (by a Major A. J. Wadman) where the IWM don't give the licensing option and say "All Rights Reserved" - clearly there are restrictions in place there. Or what about this by a Lieutenant Ernest Brooks (presumably en:Ernest Brooks (photographer) and see also Category:Photographs by Ernest Brooks), or this by an Ivan L. Bawtree? Bawtree was born in 1894 and died in 1979, but was employed by the British Army Graves Registration Unit and this is what his photos cover (see description here) - it would be great if we could use these. Carcharoth (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The IWM routinely claims rights over public domain images. Their claims are highly unreliable and are not of themselves a reason to either avoid uploading the images to Commons or a reason to delete images from Commons. It is essential for the uploader to make their own assessment of copyright. I have corresponded with the IWM but there has been no change as a result. -- (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you have any views on the examples I linked above? Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. HU 127013 - taken during or before 1915, the photograph has no named photographer so is public domain. Even if relatives passed this to the IWM, they would need to justify their claim of copyright with some evidence. They could try arguing they have publication rights, but that's not been claimed on their site. I suggest {{PD-UK-Unknown}}.
  2. HU 124417 - as above.
  3. Q 61497 - The IWM claim of ARR is unexplained. The photograph was either taken by Wadman or collected by Wadman and donated to the war archives in 1922.[5] This photograph was part of Major Wadman documenting his service, they are not personal photographs taken while on holiday. Before the end of WW1 these would have been considered sensitive information, and property of the Ministry of Information, and could not have been published without government permission. I cannot determine the date of death for Wadman, presumably after 1922, however the photographs taken during active service of battlefield events can be argued to have been Crown property, so {{PD-UKGov}} may apply, if challenged then there would have to be much more information supplied by the IWM to justify their claims. Publication rights cannot exist for these photographs, they were made available to the public as part of the original donation in 1922; presumably the letters of donation can be examined and with some research Wadman's date of death could be discovered.
Other photographs mentioned that are titled "official visits" or were taken for the War Graves Commission, are part of reports that were Crown property. {{PD-UKGov}} applies for all that are over 50 years since creation. The IWM does not have any special rights over these photographs. -- (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The first two have the names of the commercial studios the portraits were purchased from by the IWM (you have to click through to the images of the back of the prints). Messrs Speaight Ltd and Messrs H. Walter Barnett Ltd respectively. I agree about the Ernest Brooks one and will upload that. No idea why the ARR restriction is on the Wadman collection, nothing out there about him that seems special. The link you provide doesn't definitively say that the collection was acquired by the IWM in 1922. But they should give more information, I agree. Will have a look through the Bawtree collection - the British Army Graves Registration Unit is part of what preceded the IWGC (now CWGC), which was formally created in 1917. Hmm. "Showing 1 - 10 of 600 results". This will take a while! Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If there is only the name of the photography company, then the 70 year rule applies, so {{PD-old-70-1996}} should be sufficient. -- (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
If we think the original photograph is PD in the UK (assuming that's the country of origin) and the US, we would accept it. May be best to use to the {{PD-scan}} or {{PD-Art}} tags. The IWM may be claiming copyright on the digitization itself... while that is unlikely for a scan, there have been opinions that the UK may allow copyright on photographic reproductions (i.e. when using a camera to make a copy, like of a painting). That is the PD-Art tag. If that is true, and you are a UK citizen, you could be liable in the UK even if they are accepted by admins here -- the risk is yours to take. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Clindberg, however if you do upload IWM images from the UK and you are worried, then either raise a request on the Village Pump for the uploads to be done by someone outside of the UK, or write to the IWM in the same way as I have previously at User:Fæ/email/IWM. I am uploading from the UK, however as my email to them offered "If you believe I am in any way unlawfully misrepresenting any claim of copyright or other rights the IWM may have on these images, chosen based on my understanding of Crown Copyright, I would be only too happy to either adapt the permission text on any image I have uploaded, or immediately raise any problematic image(s) up for deletion review by the Wikimedia Commons community based on your stated requirements." then I believe if the IWM attempted to take any legal action, I can easily demonstrate that I made every reasonable effort to comply with copyright law, including offering to stop uploading if they just contacted me.
The fact is that the IWM would be foolish to set a precedent for "sweat of the brow", as it could end up being an important case that would undermine their long term misuse of unsupportable copyright claims for public domain images, especially when most of the most important photographs have copies freely available in other archives. -- (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


While SpaceX has released images on their Flickr page as Public Domain, I do not think that Elon Musk's Twitter images are in PD. So I guess File:Raptor-test-9-25-2016.jpg does not belong here until it is released with real licence. -- 06:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

But Musk was specifically asked to release these two images under a free license? Ruslik (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Burning Man 2013 Feet of Truth is Beauty (10227019446).jpg

Would this still count as de-minimis? The statue was made by Marco Cochrane so it is still copyrighted and there is no FOP in the United States. I'm not so worried about the portion of this larger statue shown here but I'm wondering about the grid pattern on the statue that seems to be an intentional part of the artwork. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's de minimis. I'm not really worried about the framework, but that's a large substantial part of the statue; e.g. w:Statue of Liberty Forever stamp only included the face, but was still a matter of a major lawsuit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Nominated for deletion. De728631 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Interpreting COM:TOYS for photographs taken by established Wikimedians

I would appreciate some views on how we can justify keeping the wording of COM:TOYS as:

When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.

This is not being enforced on Commons for detailed photographs of toys by established Wikimedians, when it is convenient to ignore it. Principally because any deletion request has a large majority of keep votes, rather than because of validating the photograph against copyright requirements or Commons policies. My experience of attempting a deletion request several months ago, was encountering a hostile presumption of bad faith; very discouraging for anyone wanting to raise legitimate questions of how we demonstrate a photograph is of a public domain toy.

We could either remove the requirement from Commons for the burden of proof to be on the uploader to prove a toy is public domain, or we could transfer these files in use by Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia affiliate promotional photographs, to those projects where there can be a weaker interpretation of copyright.

Examples include:

  1. DR, File:Erminig.jpeg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. DR, File:Summit_meeting_between_Wendy_the_Weasel_and_Percy_Plush_in_Brussels_(July_2014).JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. DR, File:Wikimania_2014_Day_1_(14912136731).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Thanks -- (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Just as a balance, I have used a quick Google search to track down similar images of stuffed toys currently hosted on Commons, and raised deletion requests for them in the last hour, based solely on the COM:TOYS requirement. I suspect that for images not in use by Wikimedians on other projects, the close decision should be fairly obvious. Whether 'in use' concerns do or should outweigh other concerns, is the main issue with the practical interpretation of COM:TOYS.

  1. File:Bagpuss.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. File:Two plush llamas in front of a laptop computer.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. File:Boyds Bears Mrs Northstar.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  4. File:Amigurumi.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  5. File:Steiff Jocko.JPG (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  6. File:Plush monkey in notebook (3932234539).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  7. File:Stuffed duckling at a laptop.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  8. File:Stuffed hedgehog.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  9. File:Stuffed tiger wearing a sombrero.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  10. File:Stuffed ebola.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  11. File:Yellowfinned Tuna Stuffed Animal.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  12. File:Ice age Stuffed animal.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

-- (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

My opinion remains the same as in Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2016-06#File:Petit_tigre_on_the_top_of_Manhattan.jpg. They are quite possibly legal via fair use, but commercial use would likely be a problem, unless copyright in the toys in question has expired. I see in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Capitole du libre 2012 - I IZ ON Wikimedia.jpg it was kept because of this ruling which stated that the toy was utilitarian and not subject to copyright. However, a little further searching would have found this second ruling, which was when that case was appealed to a circuit court, which reversed and vacated the decision, declaring that the toy in question was indeed copyrightable (and gives several references to other cases which did the same for other toys). For photos where the toys happened to be there in the photo, even if fairly prominent, they may be OK -- but photos were the toy is the focus or intentionally included, are likely derivative works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete following Pivot Point International Inc. v. Charlene Products, the American copyright case over mannequin heads. One side argued that the heads were simple and utilitarian, while the other argued that they were copyrightable. The side for copyright won. These animals are much less utilitarian than a minimalistic plastic head for holding wigs. I agree with Fae - the images are being kept because some people think they are cute. The Wikimedia community has a grantmaking process. As a compromise, I would support funding going to the community development of a mascot animal and art if the demand is there. Otherwise, there needs to be stronger and more detailed arguments about why these images of toys are hosted contrary to the rules on Commons. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    @Bluerasberry: The Pivot Point vs. Charlene Products case may add more heat than light. Though the mannequin head was copyrighted, the 1992 case declared it to be of utilitarian purpose because of its commercial use for beauty products. If we are to use legal cases, I suggest we use those specifically about toys, like the 1981 Gay Toys, Inc. v. Buddy L Corp. case. The Gay Toys case has been used to argue a generic position that all toys are utilitarian as they have utility as toys, and as bizarrely circular as that seems it has to be countered—noting that the Gay Toys case was vacated on appeal in 1983 as "toys do not even have an intrinsic function other than the portrayal of the real item". I am not experienced with U.S. law, but when using legal cases, there is often great difficulty in arguing the generic position from the specific unless there are higher level rulings that then set a standard interpretation of a legal act. If the community remains at odds in this area, we may benefit from asking for legal advice which may then cause us to change our guidelines. -- (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    @: I've more or less completed User:Elcobbola/Stuffed Animals, which hopefully will have something more along the lines of what you are looking for. Эlcobbola talk 02:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The essay could be usefully quoted if you would like to add your opinion to the exemplar deletion requests listed below. Though others may argue over conclusions or guidance, the summary of prior U.S. legal cases is a nice baseline to argue from. -- (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@, Elcobbola: Thanks both of you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete It's worth noting that these were all closed by the same admin--the one whose inappropriate closures, including related to models, contributed to the frustration and departure of editors and the removal of his tools. I wrote the models essay as a direct result, and subsequent DRs have generally been consistent and inline with copyright law. I'd started a similar essay on stuffed animals (soft sculptures), which contains certain of the cases above, and others. Perhaps I need to finish it. (The relevance of the preceding is that the erroneous closures may be isolated to one (or several) misguided individual(s), not a greater systematic issue requiring alternative hosting as mentioned in the OP.) In the US, where WMF servers are located, soft sculptures are copyrightable objects and not considered useful articles. (Per Gay Toys, for example: "[T]he statutory definition of 'useful article' suggests that toys are copyrightable. To be a 'useful article,' the item must have 'an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article.' And a toy airplane is merely a model which portrays a real airplane. To be sure, a toy airplane is to be played with and enjoyed, but a painting of an airplane, which is copyrightable, is to be looked at and enjoyed. Other than the portrayal of a real airplane, a toy airplane, like a painting, has no intrinsic utilitarian function.") Эlcobbola talk 15:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. As test cases I have raised:

  1. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Erminig.jpeg
  2. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Summit meeting between Wendy the Weasel and Percy Plush in Brussels (July 2014).JPG
  3. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wikimania 2014 Day 1 (14912136731).jpg

I welcome your participation in those cases in order to establish new precedent or ensure current policies are applied equitably. Thanks -- (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Addendum It's worth mentioning the exception File:Budsies Unicorn.jpg where a unique stuffed toy was made from a child's design, so there is probably no copyright issue for the shared photograph, and stuffed versions of the Linux penguin might be copyright free, but I think that may be dubious depending on added creativity for specific models, ref Category:Tux toys and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Linux-pingvin.jpg. -- (talk) 06:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright searches and renewals

To save time in the future, for an image like this one, that shows a copyright date, if I do a search for 28 years later and find there was no renewal of a U.S. photo, are they OK to upload? Or do I still need to get approval first? --Light show (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

If copyright was not renewed 28 years later, you can upload the image directly using {{PD-US-not-renewed}}. Please note though that this is only valid for images that were published between 1923 and 1963. Any later publications may have copyright terms up to 95 years from the date of first publication. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks.--Light show (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright could be renewed anytime from the 27th anniversary of the date of publication to the 28th (and often December 31 of the 28th year). So you normally need to search at least two years of renewals -- 27 and 28 years out. It was even possible for renewals filed in December to not be published until the volumes of the next year. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: Research is indeed required, and I have been informed that Light show had been placed under an unblock condition last year which requires that he asks for approval on his talk page before uploading any such images. My reply above was not meant to lift these conditions but after nine months I wouldn't mind if that was done either. While this is being discussed with Revent, I recommend that you either wait with uploading any images or keep announcing your uploads on your user page. De728631 (talk) 01:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Light Show has been requesting people to look at them here, instead of his talk page, as a more visible location, which is actually 'better' IMO. Reventtalk 09:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are links for the U.S. Copyright Catalog for photographs from 1947 to 1978, (1978 to today is in a different website) including the Renewals sections. When I do a search or upload I can either add a link (which requires turning pages in the 3d viewer) or I can add a screenshot of the actual pages searched. There's even an alphabetical index of all names, so I can check by the subject or publisher's name. And there's now a full keyword search function. How best then to add those search results when I ask for approval?

They also include a totals summary for any given year, and the ratio of "renewals" to "current registrations" is 3.6%. The vast majority of the renewals I saw were for fine art, such as done by people like en:Maria Innocentia Hummel, or various other figurines, drawings, and lithographs, all of which were intended for sale. --Light show (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Another thing I discovered is that they have separate sections for "Published photographs" and "Unpublished photographs." So a photographer could copyright their photo even if it's not or never published. And those copyrights can also be searched. --Light show (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There are more links at UPenn. Photographic copyrights can be hard to search for, because if they appeared in a book or other publication (by the same author or company) the same year, they could be renewed by being part of that publication -- so it's a good idea too to see if there are any such other publications which have a decent chance of containing it. I think links are enough, or at least the volumes/sections that you searched, and the names and/or titles you searched for. Doing this kind of thing is tedious and can take some practice. The OCR in some of those volumes is also pretty poor, so you often have to look at the actual pages. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
About other books including a photo, I've seen many books which are compilations of old Hollywood photos and they always credit the photo source to somewhere else, such as Getty, Korbel Collection, private collectors, or the studios. I've come across only a few recent biographies where the author attributed a photo to their own collection, but those books weren't compilations. Examples: Hollywood Glamor Portraits: 145 Photos of Stars, 1926-1949 (1976); Hollywood Portraits: Hot-Light Techniques for Professional Photographers (2012). --Light show (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Those aren't quite the same thing -- an author (or their agent) had to be the one to renew their own works. So it would probably be books etc. by the same copyright owner as the photograph, and in the same year (or at least within the 28-year limit of the photograph). Obviously, the fact a photo was in a book which only got renewed after the photograph's copyright expired would not count. But there have been e.g. annual compilations of AP photos which could muddy the waters for their photos taken in such years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Movie copyrights vs. photo copyrights

The UPenn link is also nice because it shows more clearly that there are different copyrights used for films and for photos promoting the films. I've had many photos deleted when someone found that the movie was copyrighted. It led to some disputes which I assume contributed to me getting banned from uploads. --Light show (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Only actual stills from the movie would be covered by the movie's copyright. Publicity photos taken separately have their own, unrelated copyright. Full movies can be complicated -- they can be derivative of an earlier novel or even the characters (if they existed in a previous work), so even if the movie was not renewed, it still may not be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There are, quite likely, images deleted that in reality 'are' in the public domain. The problem is a lack of evidence... 'generic' arguments about such images are not sufficient, and it is essentially impossible, from just the CCE, to identify a registration as being for a specific photograph. This is unfortunate, but it does not mean we should just 'keep' them, and make claims about their status without specific evidence about the particular work. Reventtalk 03:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ann Bancroft, 1952 ✓

This still of Ann Bancroft is from a 1952 film. I checked 1981-1983 for her name, the film's name, and the studio's name. (example). No renewals of anything were found. --Light show (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I assume tacit approval of images like this one if no one comments after a day or so? As the page has 865 watchers and hundreds of page visitors daily, should I always wait for final approval or can I move forward after a specified waiting period? --Light show (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: You should wait at least 3 or 4 days (the vast majority of the people 'watching' this page are almost certainly not active editors) or until their appears to be a 'consensus' that the work is okay. Reventtalk 04:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Belgian jurisdiction on threshold of originality

I want to upload this image, which was released in Belgium. Does anyone know how Belgian law works? --George Ho (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

According to this essay it is very low requiring only that the work be an "own intellectual creation of the author". But usually this album cover should be {{PD-textlogo}}. De728631 (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Created File:Whispers-rock-steady-solar-belgium-indisc-vinyl.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Curtiz and Dagover, 1932

I'd like a review of this image from 1932 copyrighted 1932 by First National Pictures. That studio closed in 1936. I did a renewal search for the persons and studio. The film itself is free online and apparently PD, FWIW. --Light show (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

First National was taken over by Warner Brothers, which would administer all of the rights after that. Copyrights rarely just go away; when companies go out of business typically another company buys up any property like that, and would be the copyright owner going forward. While it likely was, there is no information there that that photo was published in 1932 (may have been 1931 as well, if distributed as publicity before the film, etc.). But if you can show it was, then do a renewal search for the appropriate years under Warner Brothers. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
No renewals of anything by WB from 1959-1961. Sample 1960 page. --Light show (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: Yes, there are... see [6] the other half of that same volume. The CCE was published in January-June and July-December sections, that are bound together at the IA. You have to check both. Reventtalk 05:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I do that a bit differently, using 1960 for example, I go to this page first, which takes me right to renewals for any 6-month period. The page you linked to was for "current registrations," not renewals. --Light show (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You're right, that was a registration, not a renewal... I don't use the UPenn page, though I'm familiar with it, because it often links to rather crappy Google Books scans. Still, you should really first attempt to locate the original registration... and for photos, that's usually quite hard to do, unfortunately. Reventtalk 05:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any registrations by First National of 'photos' from the appropriate period, though I did find the movie. TBH, I would not trust that 'footnote' at IMDB.. for all we know, it's just referring to the copyright in the movie itself. Reventtalk 06:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The searching is simple, but finding a registration is unlikely. As noted here, "Publicity photos have traditionally not been copyrighted." From Honthaner's credentials, she seems to know. I've never come across a publicity photo that was registered, since registering one would defeat its purpose. I think that most of those boilerplate notices on publicity photos were meant for the film, not the photo. --Light show (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You can stop linking that enwiki boilerplate. We've seen it. We don't care. It's a 'generic' argument, and it's been made clear repeatedly that you need an argument for the status of the 'specific' work.
There are 'many' publicity images out there with visible copyright notices... you have, in fact, asked 'here' for people to review images that had visible copyright notices. Such works may have been 'copyrighted' without registration, or they could have been registered anytime within the initial 28 year term, and the copyright may have changed ownership before it was registered or renewed. When you do not find a registration or renewal, that does not mean it does not exist, it merely means 'you did not find it'... it's evidence, not proof. You should, really, always look for a registration first, since it's more likely to exist, and more likely to be listed under a name that you would know to look for... if you find a registration, it's pretty easy to 'prove' if it was ever renewed.
It is far preferable to 'not' upload images that are 'in actuality' okay, due to a lack of evidence, than to upload images that end up being copyvios, and putting re-users at risk by telling them that you 'know' the specific work is okay under some generic argument. Reventtalk 07:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
If you have to rely on the "well most photos were not renewed" argument, you don't have enough evidence, so don't upload it. We need specific evidence for this specific photo. For the U.S., that means we need to find when a work was first published. That website is not the first publication. It was obviously taken long ago... so find a form which was actually published back then. If it was an unpublished photo only released years later, the dates and names you'd need to search for might be different. A source such as that does not provide enough information to do a renewal search -- if it was first published in a book or magazine, you'd have to search for that renewal, etc. Anything with an unknown provenance becomes too suspect. For non-U.S. countries, we need to know the human authors and how long they lived. Anything else gets more dangerous, and also requires knowing the original publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Überseemuseum Bremen 2009 063a.jpg

I cropped this file from File:Überseemuseum Bremen 2009 063.JPG, but apparently the description/licensing in my uploading was not ok, so I got the no licence tag. I tried to correct it, but could somebody please check whether the file is ok now? Thanks --AHert (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I added the {{extracted from}} template, which makes it a bit more obvious. But yes, the original mistake was not using a licensing template, but rather just typing in the name of the license -- that means the file ends up in a "no license tag" bin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I hope I get it right next time. --AHert (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Base-legal statement from de Dominican Republic

What does Base legal statement from de Dominican Republic. Can I use data from that organizations on Commons and which license would it be? For convenience, the original text below.

Toda persona tiene derecho a solicitar y a recibir información completa, veraz, adecuada y oportuna, de cualquier órgano del Estado Dominicano, y de todas las sociedades anónimas, compañías anónimas o compañías por acciones con participación estatal, incluyendo:

a) Organismos y entidades de la administración pública centralizada;
b) Organismos y entidades autónomas y/o descentralizadas del Estado, incluyendo el Distrito Nacional y los organismos municipales;
c) Organismos y entidades autárquicas y/o descentralizadas del Estado;
d) Empresas y sociedades comerciales propiedad del Estado;
e) Sociedades anónimas, compañías anónimas y compañías por acciones con participación estatal;
f) Organismos e instituciones de derecho privado que reciban recursos provenientes del Presupuesto Nacional para la consecución de sus fines;
g) El Poder Legislativo, en cuanto a sus actividades administrativas;
h) El Poder Judicial, en cuanto a sus actividades administrativas.

Este derecho de información comprende el derecho de acceder a las informaciones contenidas en actas y expedientes de la administración pública, así como a estar informada periódicamente, cuando lo requiera, de las actividades que desarrollan entidades y personas que cumplen funciones públicas, siempre y cuando este acceso no afecte la seguridad nacional, el orden público, la salud o la moral públicas o el derecho ala privacidad e intimidad de un tercero o el derecho a la reputación de los demás.

--Jos1950 (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't speak Spanish but I've run this through Google Translator and got a decent result. This is merely a disclaimer stating that anyone has the right to obtain information from the government of the DomRep and from companies where the government is a shareholder. The text grants everyone free "access to information" from the government but it does not explicitly permit the re-use of such data on other media, let alone commercial use, as is required for Commons. So from this brief look I would say that you cannot upload any images or other files from the website you linked. De728631 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought so to, but was not sure. I was looking for something because I had found the file[0]=c49cf369269515ae8b0c27c9588d844d PEDERNALES.pdf of that institution. (There is something strange about the link by [0]). The data are useful when searching for information, but I will keep the files for backup and use the data independently. Tanks --Jos1950 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Marx Brothers 1946 ✓

Can I get a review of this 1946 photo, showing front and back? Thanks. --Light show (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Getty also has a copy, via ullstein bild. I think copies from both Germany and Argentina, and the marks, are decent indications that this was published. Reventtalk 10:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Does that mean it's probably PD and OK to use? --Light show (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hrm. Pretty clearly published at the time, and Getty likely thinks it's PD, though distribution in Argentina without copyright notice is not necessarily meaningful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Is it OK to use? --Light show (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
IMO, yes. Reventtalk 16:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Olivia de Havilland photo, 1937

I did a search for 1965 and 1966 and found nothing renewed for this photo. --Light show (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Need to search for 1964 too... Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Searched and found nothing. OK to use? --Light show (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the actual registrations for 1937-1938, Vitagraph registered a lot of copyrights for photos in that time period, under 'titles' that are completely useless, such a "M. E. pub. A". Reventtalk 17:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Curtiz Original 1952 On Set ✓

This is a photo of Michael Curtiz from 1952. I searched and found nothing around 1980 for a renewal. --Light show (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Renewal could have been in 1979 or 1980. However, renewals for both those years should be online at, so a single search would cover it. Which names did you search for? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Checked both persons and the studio name for 1978-1982. No renewals were filed. I can't add a link since it times out after a few minutes. --Light show (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not showing hits on Tineye or Google, and doesn't appear to be at the stock photo libraries either. Reventtalk 04:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hrm. Seems rather unlikely that a photo in that form was not published -- but if Warner Bros. made it, then decided not to release it as a publicity shot, then it could still be under copyright. But normally you wouldn't go to the effort of writing out the accompanying tag on the back. I may lean OK, but as always, the more evidence the better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding licensing and rights

Can I upload some images that I found in a book, but yet the book claims that the images are the property of N.Y Eastern District Attorney? In such a case, who does the picture belong to; the book that the picture is in or the judicial system? An example of a similar picture would be a picture of Jimmy Coonan, which can be found in the link below: The picture that is used in that page is a public picture of Coonan that can be easily found via google search, yet it is listed as the author's "Own work", and I doubt that author was the person who toke the mugshot of Coonan. The picture in fact can be found in the book "The Westies". As such, seeing as that is allowed, I was wondering if I could upload similar photos, which are in nearly identical circumstance to that. Thank you in response TTTAssasinator (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the image w:File:James Coonan.jpg is likely a non-free image, which are not allowed on the commons but sometimes allowed on the enwiki and, thanks to you pointing it out, it has been put up for discussion or deletion. Just because other stuff exists does not mean it is always correct or a justification for you to follow suit. You need to see when and who the book was published by and if there are any attributions for the photos, only then can we really offer you some better advise. Ww2censor (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Response: The photos in the book have also been used in other materials on the web, such as youtube videos and from a pdf file published by the New Jersey judicial government. In the book, the book attributes the pictures as being the "property" of the N.Y Eastern District Attorney office, and since the photos are likely from N.Y newspaper clippings, I don't believe that the photos belong specifically to the author either. In other words, I believe that since the book itself states the photos are the properties of the N.Y Attorney office, and that some of the same photos have been published by different sources such as government files and newspapers, I am not entirely sure as to who owns the photos. Thanks in response TTTAssasinator (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I still await a response. If further information is needed for obtaining some counsel, then I will be willing to provide it. TTTAssasinator (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@TTTAssasinator: Unfortunately, many 'own work' claims on enwiki and Commons are completely spurious.... the uploader thinks 'I scanned it, so it's own work', and that is completely false. It's really hard to know, from the information given, if the DA owns 'the copyrights' or 'the physical images'. Reventtalk 04:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: Here is what I know: the image that I intend to use is listed as being from the N.Y Eastern DA. I however found the same photo in a New Jersey Government crime publication. Added to this fact that the pictures were likely taken from some Newspaper organization in N.Y (not a proof), I can not say if the DA, despite the book attributing the photos to them, owns the pictures or even it's copyright, as if that is the case, then what of the book itself, or the use of the picture in a pdf publication of the New Jersey gov? The fact that the photo likely originated from a N.Y newspaper organization? That is all of what I know currently about the photo. TTTAssasinator (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@TTTAssasinator: To be honest, I really don't think you've given us enough information to really know (and that information may simply not 'be there' in the sources you are looking at). Most state governments in the US consider 'their' official works to be copyrighted, and (as you seem to suspect) the photo may have been licensed from some other source. Reventtalk 15:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Audie Murphy, 1951 ✓

Came across a still of Audie Murphy from a 1951 film. The renewal should have been registered by 1979. I checked 1978-1980 under the studio name, his name, and the film name. Nothing showed up. --Light show (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Is that a still from the film, or a separate photo? If the former, the film's renewal would cover it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It was presumably a separate photo. This was from MGM. --Light show (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the registrations for 'Works of Art/Photos/etc' for 1950-1953, I don't see anything by Loew's that could possibly apply to this (they have entries, but for Tom & Jerry stuff)... I think if this was registered, it had to be under the copyright for the movie itself. Reventtalk 04:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
After watching the part of the movie that I think is relevant, however, I don't think this is a frame from the film...Audie Murphy has lost his bandanna by the time he's carrying the flag. This may just have been 'copyrighted' but never registered. (shrugs) Reventtalk 05:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
OK, sounds reasonable for PD-US-not renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Vanity Fair magazine, pre-1940

I haven't been able to find any copyrights, original or renewals, for Vanity Fair before 1940. The parent company, Conde Nast, publishes other magazines, such as Vogue, and that magazine was copyrighted. A sample page from the Copyright Catalog page 120 for example, which shows Vogue with copyright by Conde Nast but nothing for Vanity Fair which would have been on page 119. The same for 1970.

As for Conde Nast, in 1940 they didn't have copyrights under their name, as this 1940 page shows, see p. 28. It seems that the magazine name was listed with Conde Nast after it, as in the Vogue example.

The question then is just about the older VF, before 1940, for example, to see if they are PD. --Light show (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the UPenn periodical renewal page, Vanity Fair was filing renewals in 1950, so that was pre-1923 material. They may have forgotten at times, but usually once that's part of the process, a company will continue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I just read that during those years it was absorbed into Vogue, which explains it all now. Thanks for checking. --Light show (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Photography: commercial information displayed

I found a picture [7] ("Carnada (4558707703).jpg", en : -> "Bait") which is now categorized, but I need to ask if the image conforms, because the object of the photograph is an advertisement, which shows a website and phone number (and an identifiable individual?). It is my opinion that the intention by the photographer was not necessarily the actual commercial promotional aspect casing the subject matter, but more of an expression. Your review is appreciated. Tortillovsky (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been deleted. Thanks. Tortillovsky (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Comrade X photo, 1940

Can someone review this photo w/o a notice on either side. Thanks.--Light show (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone else uploaded this to Commons back in February (here), with that tired boilerplate taken from the template on enwiki... the image has a 'made in usa' label, which would be used to establish that the work met the 'manufacturing requirement' for copyright, and written use restrictions on the back. It was probably copyrighted, and should probably go to DR. Reventtalk 09:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Just to make the point, more, that using that boilerplate is not acceptable here, half of the argument it makes is based on 'fair use'. Reventtalk 09:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, thee scene from the movie is here... this is clearly not a film still, the pose is slightly different. Reventtalk 10:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm unclear. Are you saying it's a frame from the movie as opposed to being a separate photo? --Light show (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: It's a separate (probably posed) photo, not a frame from the published film. Reventtalk 16:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Checked copyrights for 1978-1979 and found no renewals for any of the relevant names.--Light show (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Old Los Angeles Times

I checked renewals for the 1927 L.A. Times period and found none. Is it OK to upload any images that apparently are taken by the paper? --Light show (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

If they were taken by newspaper staff, then yes. I think it was only some New York newspapers which renewed anything prior to 1945. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: Because the USCO had an (annoying) tendency to sometimes publish registrations and renewals 'late', you should really try to identify the original registration before searching for renewals. It's a bit different if you can actually see the 'entire' paper, and not just the image, but it's possible (though unlikely) that such works would have their 'own' copyright, outside of the compilation one that would be in Part 2. Also, you need to search for an original registration to determine the difference between 'no notice' and 'not renewed'. Reventtalk 04:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
It certainly appears, however, from looking at the 1927 records that the LA Times was registering neither 'compilation' copyrights for their periodicals, nor registering them as 'contributions to periodicals' (as a note, the New York Times, LA Evening-Herald, and LA Examiner all have registrations under 'contributions', so you would expect the LA Times would as well). It seems indeed unlikely that they would protect their images without protecting the text as well. Reventtalk 04:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Per the UPenn page, the LA Times did renew some contributions starting in July 1927; a 1954 renewal volume has some of those. So it would be good to find that entry, just so you know you are looking everywhere you need to be looking -- if you missed it, then you aren't looking everywhere you should. But overall sounds like they started renewing Sunday issues only with their 1958 papers, and daily editions starting in 1962 (i.e. renewing in 1989). So there won't be much in the way of renewals or registrations before then most likely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm actually not finding any of those renewals... it really makes me wonder if the actual 'registrant' was something odd. Reventtalk 16:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the individual authors registered them. The one they are talking about is under Wetjen, Albert Richard. Page 1572 of the July-Dec 1954 volume. It just mentions the article in question appeared in the Los Angeles Times. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I uploaded a photo of Michael Curtiz and Ilya Tolstoy from a 1927 edition. --Light show (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Demokratikuskoalicio logo.svg

File was uploaded as "own work", but this seems unlikely because of this. Although the logo seems quite simple. I'm not sure if it would be above the TOO for Hungary. There's not much information given in COM:TOO#Hungary to work with and the link to a supposedly protected logo is dead. I did find what might be an archive of that webpage here, but that logo looks quite simple too. Is the DK logo simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}} or does it need to be treated as fair use?

Finally, it seems that the current version is quite different from the previous version. Should the "current" version have been uploaded as a completely different file? Is it possible that the previous version was below the TOO, but the latest version is not?

Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be OK in the U.S. Not sure about Hungary. I think an archived link to the TOO logo is here. This might be a *little* simpler but it's not that far off. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Clindberg. Does the file need to be clearly PD with respect to Hungary to be licensed as {{PD-textlogo}} on Commons? It does not seem to be "own work", so I'm not sure how to fix that if the file cannot be licensed as PD-textlogo. English Wikipedia does allow PD-USOnly to be used when logos are below the US TOO, but those files typically are not allowed to be moved to Commons. Is there a way to move images from Commons to English Wikipedia? That would make the logo OK to use on English Wikipedia, but will not necessarily mean the same for the other language Wikipedias where it is currently being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not own work, so it's PD-ineligible or bust for Commons. It could be moved to en-wiki. As for when there is lack of certainty... I'm sure we have many which go both ways, just using PD-textlogo and keeping, and some which we delete. Some countries have basically no court case guidance on such matters. I do note that the license appears to come from the previous, completely different upload, which might be on the other side of the U.S. TOO line. Might be worth a DR. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Old European photos

For old photos from Europe, such as before 1923, where the photographer isn't known, can they become PD? --Light show (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Only if they are first published in the United States, which would make that the country of origin. Otherwise they are required to be free in both the US and the country of origin, which is often life + 70 years. However, feel free to upload the pictures to the English Wikipedia under PD-1923, as the English Wikipedia does not care about any copyrights other than that of the US. -- King of ♠ 01:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the details. I'm still unable to upload anything there, so I'm forced to do it here when possible.--Light show (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If you can show the photos were published anonymously, i.e. no human author name or initials on the original publication (front or back), and that the author did not become known in the next 70 years, then they may qualify for {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. Such photos from before 1926 can be OK (either PD-1923 or PD-1996). However, "anonymous" is not the same thing as "unknown" -- so if the publication history is lost, there is little that can be done. And if there is a name, it's not anonymous, and you have to find the life dates of the author. If those are unknown, then we cannot upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems unfortunate that so many film or stage artists in Europe back then can't have their images used today. Those film studio photographers were not shooting photos as art to sell, but were treated and paid like all the other mostly nameless salaried employees, from wardrobe designers, makeup artists, lighting techs, cameramen, sound engineers, or musicians. All the marketing-related materials such as publicity stills or posters were given away gladly to the media; they would have dropped them from airplanes if they could have. The last thing a studio promoting their film would have wanted was to prevent free use of those photos. --Light show (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Copyright law is copyright law... can't get around it. That's part of why we want to be a free image repository -- a place where people can find images they can legally use in a broad array of circumstances, without counting on fair use. What we don't want is to host files that are not legally OK and have someone else pay the consequences when we are wrong, if we can help it. And copyright terms been getting extended -- photos will on average remain under copyright for probably 100-120 years or so going forward, if the author is known. The company owns the copyright in these situations (work for hire), though the term is based on the life of the human author. If they didn't bother to name the author, then they get a term of 70 years from publication. The problem for us is proving that... if the author was named originally, but then people copying it later omitted it through no fault of the original company... that's not evidence of being anonymous. The U.S. will be 95 years from publication in the same situation. Publicity stills are sort of the hardest situation -- they were implicitly made to be reused in educational or publicity contexts, but they do not qualify as a free license, since once you start using them outside their original intended context, photographers can potentially sue. That can frustrate uses such as Wikipedia pages where the use is within the implied license, but it's not really "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
For some European countries, such as Finland and Sweden, non-creative photos have a much shorter copyright-like protection. If the photo is from such a country it may very well be free. I would also want to point out that procedures do not matter in the way they do in USA; whether the name was lost "through no fault" or by purpose is irrelevant. Once the name has been disclosed, it is not an anonymous work. On the other hand, I think one does not have to worry too much. If the photo was released without naming the photographer, and did not become famous, it is unlikely the name would have been published later. Even if it was, if you did your homework you should not face criminal charges, and damages for publishing a forgotten photo can hardly be huge. --LPfi (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, some countries have "simple photo" terms -- but from what I can remember, posed studio portraits usually are considered works and get the full term. It is more snapshots which get the shorter terms, for countries which have them (and the EU directive has changed that line in some places like Germany). The EU directive does say that in work for hire countries (a minority, but some EU countries are) the author must be named on the initial publication or the term is 70 years from publication regardless if named later. And otherwise the author must be named within the first 70 years -- if not, copyright expires, and naming the author does not bring it back. And yes, if not named on the initial publications, that's usually enough for us. The problem is often finding those original publications -- photos found on the Internet usually don't have that provenance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the author should be disclosed in 70 years, so I agree about the latter part. About studio photos, I think those are about going to the photographer instead of having a painter do the portrait. E.g. passport photos, although made in a studio, would not qualify. The threshold is formally not different from other works, but I suppose it can vary quite a lot between countries (e.g. in Sweden the definition replaced that of "artistically or scientifically valuable" photos and was probably believed to leave the threshold at a similar level). --LPfi (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, passport photos would be simple. But the original topic was more about publicity photos, and I imagine those are closer to portraits most often. And yes, it would vary highly between countries -- even with the EU directive which was supposed to somewhat standardize such things, Germany now deems virtually anything above a photocopy or X-ray to be a "work", while France continues their previous definitions, with the level being quite high for photos (and they don't have a simple term, so if a photo does not qualify, it may not get protection at all). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Curtiz photo ✓

Can I get an opinion about this photo? It includes a printed signature on the bottom right, which means it was printed in quantity for publicity to the media. It also uses his Anglicized spelling which he changed to after 1926 when he moved to Hollywood. I could try finding someplace the photo was printed, but it seems that since it was mass-produced in the U.S. that it would at least meet the Precautionary Principle guideline. His bio could use a better, and free, lead image. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

There are two parts to this -- publication of the photo overall, which needs to be shown in order to know the copyright clock started then, and distribution of this particular copy, to show that a copy was distributed without a copyright notice. If this was a private, undistributed copy, and other ones were distributed but with notice, it would be published with a copyright notice. In this case, the first one is probable, and the second part is unfortunately unknown unless you know where this copy came from. The odds are more than even it's OK, but there isn't much evidence here. Such evidence could be found in other copies, but based on this and this alone... not enough here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If you could find a year of publication, and who the owner was (probably the studio), you may have better results with a renewal search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The photo was printed in the Wisconsin Chronicle on Sept. 21, 1928. I saved the section with caption info. There's no photographer listed, just the newspaper. I can upload it with the photo. Let me know if that would work. --Light show (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
OK to use? --Light show (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It was apparently used in a 1912 poster for a film, per IMDB. --Light show (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
IMDB shows the photo, it does not show (or say) that is was used in a film poster. IMDB actually shows the same photo for... it looks like six different movies. Reventtalk 03:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
When I mouse over the photo the text says it was on a poster. In any case, does it seem to be PD? --Light show (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Curtiz was 24 years old, living in Hungary, just trying his hand at directing, and was not using the name "Curtiz" yet in 1912 -- so that date has nothing to do with the photo. He's obviously older than 24. Someone at IMDB just used that photo on all Curtiz movie pages. It gives less confidence in your determinations if you go by any date you see. The 1928 one is more interesting though. That would certainly help. That would limit the publication range from 1926 to 1928. That's a lot more feasible to do a search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I found nothing for that weekly paper between 1926-1928 --Light show (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the paper would not be the copyright holder, and lack of renewal of the paper would not be meaningful, so searching for that name doesn't prove anything. You have to know who the copyright owner was. You'd probably have to search for Curtiz and Warner Brothers, though the possibility it could be the individual photographer is there. There is no explicit copyright notice on the original to give you a name to search for, which is part of the problem. Dunno, it's dancing right on the lines of being PD-US-no_notice and PD-US-not_renewed. It was published by 1928 by the sounds of it (and I would include that as upload evidence). Does seem highly likely to be a Warner Bros. publicity photo, so if there is nothing for that name (or Curtiz) for the volumes of 1953, 1954, 1955, and 1956, that may be enough. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Curtiz photo by Hurrell, 1943

Did a search for surrounding renewal years of this photo by Hurrell, from 1943. I also searched for MPTV, a stock house which, like Getty, claims copyright over everything, regardless. --Light show (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

For the above photo, it's reprinted in Michael Barson's Who's Who of Hollywood Directors (1995), with credit given to the L.A. Public Library archive photos collection. This Michael Curtiz portrait also came from there. From their description, their photos are free to use w/o restrictions. I can call or write them to verify if necessary. Their order form for prints says nothing about copyright, restrictions, or licensing. --Light show (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
BTW, is there any online PD photo archive in Europe similar to the above and the LOC? --Light show (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: What the hell? The page at does not say that their photos are free to use without restrictions, it in fact specifically states that one of their collections (Shades of LA) is 'restricted to personal, research, and non-commercial use', and says nothing at all about the status of the other collections. I'm, to be honest, starting to feel like everything you say needs to be double checked. Reventtalk 05:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC) states that many of the photos in the Herald Examiner collection are wire service photos that cannot be posted online because they are the property of the wire service. You cannot just assume images from there are PD. Period. Reventtalk 05:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Those "wire service" photos are not posted on their web site so it's not an issue. That message could be for those going to their collections in person to borrow a copy. As for the others, you're right, they're not all PD. The ones I was looking at seemed to be free. Note that the source for Curtiz shows no restrictions, while that "Shades of Gray" collection of old families, does have restrictions given in a typical source page. They make the difference pretty clear on those source pages, so it's easy to verify. --Light show (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
It's an issue that you claimed a specific webpage makes a statement of permission that it clearly does not.
The first image, the one from IMDB/MPTV. Both claim it's copyrighted, and state the photographer. The book attributes it to the LAPL photo collection, but it is not 'visible' at LAPL... they do not say it is PD, and in fact say that there are images in their collection that are not.
Also, see the LAPL page at and read the red text at the top. Don't upload these. Reventtalk 07:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
What's the problem with the 2nd image? It's source page has no restrictions stated. The link above doesn't seem to work well, so you may have to do a search to get it. --Light show (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Light show: The "Photo Order Information" page says the the LAPL will provide a release form with 'permissions to images and copyright restrictions' after an image is ordered. They don't say anything, anywhere, about stating the copyright status of works on their website. They also, specifically, say that the images on their website are for personal use only. Reventtalk 17:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Their page says: The contents of this collection are restricted to personal, research, and non-commercial use. The Library cannot share the personal and/or contact information of the donors, their descendants, or associates who contributed photographs and oral histories to the collection. Translation -- they don't have the first idea about copyright status, so only use under fair use conditions. They probably do not own copyright in the first place and can't give permission for anything. For photographs, you need to know when they were first published, not first taken. You need very solid evidence. Looking for renewals is very very hard -- you need to show they were not part of a book which got renewed in the correct year, etc. A photo from 1943 may not have been published for some time later. Yes, this means that many photos which may be PD we will leave alone just because we don't know enough. Stick to photos where you can see the original publication conditions -- either no notice, or the original copyright notice giving the year and copyright owner to search for, and you see the photo in its published form. Publicity photos are much more likely to have needed an individual renewal; other photos get much much harder. For example a photo which was only published in a cropped version, may mean the rest of the photo (published many years later) is still unpublished and remains copyrighted, so we can't use the whole thing. You need to show that the photo was not in a book (are you searching book renewal sections?), periodicals (separate renewal sections), possibly prints, etc. You can't just search artworks. Publicity photographs, where you can see the originally published form, at least have a grounding in that that was the original form of publication so you have some solid information to start with. Picking random photos which have a date will get you into trouble sooner rather than later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you then recheck the earlier Michael Curtiz photo section from last week? OK or not? --Light show (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
About your first sentence, that "The contents of this collection are restricted ...", that was from the "Shades of L.A." collection text. The Overview description states that "The Photo Collection includes these main groupings: Security Pacific National Bank Collection, the Shades of LA Compilations, and the Herald Examiner newspaper morgue. Those are three different collections with their own re-use guidelines. I was only going by an image from the first of those. I'd be happy to call or write them to clarify PD status for that particular collection, and if they say they're PD, then OTRS can take it from there. --Light show (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I wrote them to clarify all that and will update when they reply. In the meantime, can someone recheck that other photo? --Light show (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
OK fine, but don't see anywhere anything which remotely sounds like a free license for the rest. If you order photos from them, looks like they make you sign a contract to limit further distribution -- and that is all collections. They may not own all of the copyrights in question anyways -- that depends on the terms of the donors. In short, anything there you'd have to prove PD status by another means. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
They replied stating they have 3,000 boxes of photos, but the one in question can't be located do to filing errors. I also asked about other press photos in their collection, to see if they would add the reverse side to the source web page or even send me copy if asked, and they implied that they could, since it would show publication date and a description. --Light show (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Marvel of Ants.jpg

Can someone check the OTRS ticket on the original huwiki source image at hu:Fájl:Bence_Mate_Wildlife_Photographer_of_the_Year.jpg which says it is a copyright image. Is it free enough for us to keep here? Ww2censor (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The licence template at hu.wikipedia has a small disclaimer in English: "This image is copyrighted and used here with permission. For the purposes of Wikipedia this is a non-free licence." If it is non-free on Wikipedia it's inappropriate for Commons. De728631 (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Arnold Palmer photos

1. I found a nice press photo of Arnold Palmer, which would help his article. Shows all needed info. on the reverse. He died a few days ago. --Light show (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

2. Here's another, from 1963 which would look good in the body. --Light show (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

3. Another press photo from 1961.

4. Or this one from 1963, showing both sides.--Light show (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

All are wire photos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
On the photos that include proof of publication, such as with a news clipping, dates, publication names, etc., and based on the Library of Congress's review of such press photos and their published conclusion that they were rarely, if ever registered or renewed for copyright, would a search serve to be strong enough supporting evidence of no copyright? This question may come up in the future for similar wire photos. --Light show (talk) 16:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
If they were not renewed, that is a possibility. Those do show they were published at the time, just not published without notice. It would help to know the photographers -- sometimes they could be contractors who keep copyright and could renew under their own name. But it's also possible an AP search is enough. Be sure to look in the book sections though... if the AP produced a book of the year's photos, and renewed that, that clouds the waters until we see what photos were inside, as the book renewal would cover any photos they owned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
My understanding about such books, which are basically compilations, is that the book's copyright does not extend to any preexisting material. See this circular. --Light show (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

File:2009 Golden Guitar Winners.jpg

Photo is described as commissioned work, but I'm not sure if that always automatically implies a transfer of copyright or whether the photographer still holds the copyright in some cases. Is OTRS needed for this image to verify the uploader is also the copyright holder? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Per the Australian Attorney General (see page 7) the photographer is the copyright owner unless there was a specific agreement to the contrary. Reventtalk 16:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Revent. Should this be tagged with {{npd}} then? -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

U.N. Security Council resolutions

Hi! I'd like to ask if the United Nations Security Council resolutions deleted in the past (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013) could be {{PD-UN-doc}}. If so, I'd later ask for a massive undeletion request.
They were deleted because they had an obsolete template ({{PD-UN}}) or a wrong one ({{PD-US-no notice-UN}}). I think those documents fit in {{PD-UN-doc}} (as well as someone stated in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/06#United_Nations_resolutions), and I believe that the files in question were neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope. Some of them are being used in broken books in es.source (e.g. s:es:Index:Resolución 1921 del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas (2010).pdf) and that's why I'm interested.
Some users have argued in the past that UN resolutions post-1987 are copyrighted. E.g. in Wikisource it was asked a massive deletion of UN resolutions post-1987, but it was later canceled because of the UN resolutions in the public domain. In fact, there are a lot in Category:PD-UN-doc and a lot more in Wikisources (e.g. s:Category:UN Security Council Resolutions).
Thanks for reading! -Aleator (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • From a copyright point of view I would reluctantly support an undeletion pending individual review of all involved files. I have checked a few documents each from the 2004, 2011 and 2013 deletion discussions and each of them had a UN document symbol which does make them {{PD-UN-doc}}. However, the question arises: do we need all those on Commons? IMHO such PDF documents should better be stored at Wikisource. De728631 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Usually the source PDFs are here, and the text transcriptions are at Wikisource. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Ah, ok. Then we should restore the PDFs. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Fits the description of public domain documents. Create an undeletion request and look for the logo in each document. 23:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The arguments above are based on the template {{PD-UN-doc}}, which says

"This text document published by the United Nations without a copyright notice, was left in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications".

That would be fine before 1989, but after that, omitting the copyright notice does not put a document in the public domain. Created works are copyrighted immediately upon creation and in order for a work to be PD, the creator must take explicit action. The UN document cited and linked in the template has similar language,

" The following categories of material will, as at present, be left in the public domain,"

but, again, inaction on copyright does not make a work PD -- the creator must explicitly use CC-0 or another similar license.

It is entirely possible that we can find a different way to reach the conclusion that these works are the equivalent of CC-0, but relying on a law which went out in 1989 won't do it.

Also, if we do conclude that these works have a place here, I note that undeletion is a slow process. It would probably be faster if some interested person simply uploaded them again with same file names. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK. I think the best for all will be that I send a mail to the UN and get a very clear view about the exact license of those U.N.S.C. Resolutions. Please, archive the undeletion request. If I get a go-on permission, I willl OTRS it, and re-upload just the needed PDF files. Thanks for feedback! -Aleator (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hello again. I've asked to UN about UNSCR available in UN webs, pre-1989 and post-1989, in English, Spanish or French, as raw text or as PDF; if comercial and/or derivative uses are allowed for each, or Public Domain apply for each of the casuistic. This is the answer (if OTRS validation of the mail is needed, just tell me, please):
Dear All,

Please note that the resolutions are copyright protected.

Depending on the intended use, permission has to be granted prior to reprint.

What do you understand? All of them are copyrighted?! Also {{PD-UN-doc}}? I'm so confused! What do we do next? A massive deletion request, instead of a massive undeletion request? A bit crazy, this... -Aleator (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support the note about the copyright notice is a red herring (that only really applies for pre-1989 works). s:Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 gives the policy going forward for post-1989 documents, which is why we have the separate tag, and is limited to certain types of documents. That has nothing to do with copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. A created work cannot "be left in the public domain" -- the creator must take an affirmative action to place it in the public domain. The cited text does not do that. It is also wishy-washy on the question of revocabliity. The language says, effectively, "we will do nothing about copyright now". Having done nothing, the UN may decide later to assert copyright. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
At the time, yes works could be "left in the public domain". Many many countries were not party to the Berne Convention (the U.S. was joining that year, but many countries were still UCC members only and often required notices, and many countries were neither). To me, that is plainly stating that they intend that category of work to be public domain, and could easily amount to en:abandonment (legal) -- there is an explicit statement of intentions (still in force). We should not reinterpret the explicit wording in light of the fact that most countries later became members of the Berne Convention -- the intent seems fairly clear there. Deletion seems to be copyright paranoia to me, getting into highly theoretical territory which realistically will never be resolved in a courtroom. If they rescind the statement, we can put a date on the tag. United Nations works have a very peculiar nature, different than a normal private copyright, and I don't think it helps anyone to delete works that the author has declared they intend to be public domain. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
If we are going to consider undeleting these, it need to be done carefully and selectively. UN publications are 'not' exempt from copyright protection under US law... 17 USC 104 (b) (5) actually explicitly says they 'are' protected. Only works that have been specifically placed in the public domain by the UN are okay here... this would, generally, mean that we need a specific claim that the individual works fall under s:Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2, and a consensus that the statement there is 'equivalent' to something like CC-0 (which I think we have). Reventtalk 03:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment COM:UNDEL has been denied. I assume that the reason is copyright infringment of all of them, and that I cannot reupload any of them. -Aleator (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
That looks like a weird closure. @INeverCry:, was the closure due to that you think the {{PD-UN-doc}} tag is invalid, or the unrelated tangent on PD-EdictGov that the discussion had at the end? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The unrelated tangent on PD-EdictGov that the discussion had at the end (basically per Sanandros). Feel free to disregard my close. Sometimes in my attempt to keep UDEL manageable, I may very well make a close too quickly based on a misunderstanding of what's been said. INeverCry (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm still confused, guys. Sorry. Forget the massive word, it seems that it makes it more difficult to handle. Let me make the question again but more objective. Would it be OK to undelete the following files? res. 1921 (2010), res. 1982 (2011), res. 2082 (2012), res. 2083 (2012) and res. 2093 (2013). They are the ones broken in Wikisource. If "yes", I assume that the correct template would be {{PD-UN-doc}}. If "no", I assume no undelete nor reupload (and I'll delete the texts in Wikisource). Thanks to all for the feed-back.-Aleator (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Aleator: Any UN document with an official 'document symbol', and no copyright statement, should be fine under {{PD-UN-doc}}, because the UN has an official policy of not seeking protection for them (and that covers all Security Council resolutions). Anything else needs looked at more carefully... my 'caution' is that we shouldn't just blindly undelete 'all' UN stuff, because it's all copyrighted 'unless' the UN has abandoned it. @INeverCry: Mind actually reverting yourself at UDR, or re-closing it? Reventtalk 22:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Revent: I've reverted my close and re-added the request to the top of COM:UDEL. INeverCry (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support per Carl Lindberg and User:Aleator and per INeverCry retraction. Complicated one. Good discussions. --Elvey (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone close this before it gets archived?--Elvey (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a general discussion. There is no reason to close this general discussion here. Users are welcome to comment as much as they want. The section will be archived normally after nobody added anything for a week. This is not a deletion or undeletion request. Deletion or undeletion requests on related matters, if any, would eventually be closed on their respective pages when people are ready there. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a related UDR (that I think has been linked before. If there are no new significant objections, it's my intention to re-close it in the next couple of days, and undelete the various Security Council resolutions that have been mentioned as falling under clause 2 of {{PD-UN-doc}} (and ensuring they are licensed thusly). While I'm in a way 'involved' with the discussion, I think the consensus so far has been fairly clear... I'm just giving it plenty of time, since there are a substantial number of files. I think there is little point to trying to specifically list the affected files (they are in the DRs mentioned at the top of this thread), but will not undelete anything that does not explicitly have a UN document symbol and no copyright notice. Reventtalk 03:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Closure, cross-posted from COM:UDR

Works initially published by the United Nations are subjects of copyright protection... this is explicit in US law. However, the United Nations 'historically' sought such protection for very few works, in the days in which formalities were still required, and has maintained an official, and 'explicit', policy of 'leaving certain works in the public domain', and not seeking protection for them, for over thirty years now. That resolutions of the Security Council ("written material officially issued under a United Nations document symbol, regardless of the form of production") fall within the scope of this policy of not seeking copyright protection seems quite obvious, and does not appear to be a matter of disagreement. The UN does not appear to have ever attempted to protect such material, in it's entire history.

The UN also issues, and sells, annual volumes of the complied resolutions, with supporting material. Those publications are 'not' in the public domain; though they incorporate material that the UN does not seek to protect, they also include material that is copyrighted. It is merely the actual resolutions themselves, as issued by the UN under a document symbol and a UN masthead, that I have undeleted here... there has clearly been much other material uploaded to Commons, over time, to which this does not apply... my 'closure' here is just, specifically, about the SC resolutions, as clearly falling under a specific point of the UN's administrative policy.

The UN's policy of not seeking protection for certain works is not a formal license, and is not 'irrevocable'.... however, it is explicit, long standing, and provided with a clear rationale. The likelihood of the UN ever changing this policy, at least for the 'subset' of SC resolutions, seems exceedingly minimal. If this does ever occur in the future, the status of these works can and should be revisited, but while that policy remains in affect there seems to be a consensus to keep these documents on both Commons and Wikisource, as 'public domain'. Reventtalk 20:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)