Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Sporting Rosiori Logo.jpg

File is licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}, but I am wondering if the soccer ball imagery is something typically considered simple enough to not be eligible for copyright protection. Country of origin appears to be Romania based upon en:CS Sporting Roşiori, but there's nothing listed at COM:TOO for Romania. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a matter of opinion. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Cut-off date for the PD-old template

File:EFN_Network_logo.svg deleted

I've almost given up on Wikimedia commons. Please explain to me how to correctly upload files. I've uploaded our logo File:EFN_Network_logo.svg which is licensed CC-BY-SA 4.0, as is all the contents that's produced by EFN. The logo was used in the infobox about us in the page no:EFN. I was contacted by User:Mifter on User_talk:BFG and answered back within 4 hours. I also sent an email to explaining that this was a work for hire. I explained that I do not own the copyright, but as the managing director of EFN who owns the copyright, I'm the highest authority to act on behalf of EFN should any permissions be needed. I simply don't understand how to correctly upload an image when acting on behalf of the copyright holder. BFG (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@BFG: If all works of the organization are licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0, the easiest way to resolve the problem is to simply note that on the organization's website. - Reventtalk 18:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
As in [3]? BFG (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
That should be acceptable per the advice given at WP:DONATEIMAGE. When uploading the file, choose CC BY-SA 4.0 and in the file description, add a link to that page so a License reviewer can verify the specified license. clpo13(talk) 21:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@BFG: I've restored the logo, and added a link to your license statement in the 'permission' field. - Reventtalk 20:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: Thanks! BFG (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Single enough?

Hi all, I've just uploaded all the pictures of an orange bus in Category:Transphobia and now I feel unsure about how simple the boy and girl shapes are. What's your opinion? --Discasto talk 13:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emarald Lake, Ooty.jpg

A case of license changing on flickr. Your input is welcome. --XXN, 19:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this video in public domain?

I think this 1917 video published by RT is in public domain, as the copyright is obviously finished. Am I right? -Theklan (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The link is dead. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
This is likely one of the videos from the period of February Revolution. If published before 7 November 1917, it is in public domain now. See {{PD-RusEmpire}}. Ruslik (talk) 12:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
New link Yann: -Theklan (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Content from ESA under Cc-by-sa-3.0-igo

User:אמא של גולן just informed us in the new release under {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-igo}} by ESA - Conditions for images, videos or other content released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO) Licence. -- Geagea (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

See also Village Pump notice at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/02#European_Space_Agency_release_its_content_under_a_CC_BY-SA_3.0_IGO_license. While not a universal release (yet) and there are provisions, it is a great step forward. Huntster (t @ c) 18:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


This file seems to include an email from the subject of the photo in the file's description. Is this acceptable, or does something need to be actually sent to OTRS? It's not clear whether the subject of the photo is also the original copyright holder; moreover, the file page is a Wikipedia-type page which means that anyone could edit it at any time, so it does not seem to be the best way to give permission. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Marchjuly: Generally speaking, you are correct, but given that the file was originally uploaded in 2006, Commons:Grandfathered old files applies. LX (talk, contribs) 09:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Understand. Thanks for clarifying. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

PD-USGov files first published in a foreign country

For a photo strictly tagged {{PD-USGov}} that was first published overseas (or merely a photo taken in a foreign country by US gov), could the image be copyright in the foreign country? Does commons permit such images? I don't have an example but the issue might arise in a forthcoming enwp discussion (where such files would certainly be allowed). Thincat (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Where it was taken doesn't matter. Only the author, license, and publication do. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
A work tagged PD-USGov that was published overseas could be copyright in the foreign country, in theory. PD-USGov material is in theory only out of copyright in the US, and the US in theory reserves the right to push the copyright in foreign nations, but an official opinion in the 1970s from several nations was that they wouldn't accept the copyright US Gov works not copyrightable in their home nation. That could change if its source nation was not the US.
I'm not big on pushing the issue; we treat PD-USGov material as if it were PD world-round, and we should expect the US to treat it that way. If everyone treats it as PD, it's more likely to be taken that way when push comes to shove than if everyone treats it as copyrighted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Belated thanks for the advice. Thincat (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Model release form for video interviews

I am involved in an upcoming Wikipedia edit-a-thon at a major UK University. This will involve me holding short video interviews with attending undergraduates, post graduates and alumni. We recognise that some of these individuals may well become 'notable' in the future, whilst a few already are now. My question is to enquire if there is a standard 'release form' that Wikimedia recommends me to use, or what the best method is to ensure that in future there is no doubt about the legitimacy of the video interviews, its free use and permissions of the person being interviewed. Many thanks Parkywiki (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

there does not seem to be a process yet. there is Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, and from the wikipedia article a standard form here (sorry new york not UK). or here
i would suggest com:OTRS in the forms, put Template:Personality rights on it, and document your process as you will be setting the standard. unfortunately we have relied on "public person" and "non-profit use" and shifted the burden on re-users. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Parkywiki, Slowking4: I just uploaded some files and put them at a page at Commons:Storyteller legal release. Please do not mistake this as my understanding of how this works. I do some of this for Wikimedia New York City and I adapted this Wikimedia Foundation form for our use by replacing the name "Wikimedia Foundation" with "Wikimedia New York City". I assumed that if it suited WMF, then it was good enough for me. I think more conversation should happen around this issue and since nothing else seems to exist I hope that starting a page for these documents will advance the conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
that is good as far as it goes. the hard question is "model release" for commercial re-use by downstream downloaders. or is a separate permission required? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: That is a separate issue. I have a halted proposal on this at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Development of a model release process for photos and video which I would like to revive. Are you interested in this topic? If so, I would like get more feedback on some parts of it.
Right now all these processes happen informally, but for those who would like to more formally make releases, then I wish they had options for doing so. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
hmm, they did not fund, and you did not reboot this year? you could break it into several small grants? i would like a better practice for photos of living people. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge

A "model release" or "consent form" is a legal document between the subject of the photo and the photographer. Any such document is likely be specific to the country laws concerning these two parties (e.g. English law). Example release documents for photos are available for free. For example:

The kind of "Model Release" demanded by stock photo agencies is "For any purpose whatsoever". This is far and above what is required or reasonable for Wikipedia or Commons. Indeed, considering that a person in signing such a release is permitting their likeness to be used for widespread commercial (promotional) purposes, it would seem remarkable that anyone would sign such a document if they were not being paid. And also remarkable that any serious photographer would maintain records of these legal documents unless they were also being paid for the work. Note that there is often confusion between our requirement that the photographer release their works under a copyright licence that permits the image to be used "for any purpose whatsoever" -- that is only wrt the photographer's rights, and quite separate from any rights the subject has.

Many images of people on Commons would be classes as "editorial use" by a stock photo agency because they neither require consent to take the photo nor to publish in the limited sphere of news or educational imagery that is typical on Wikipedia.

There are also consent forms that Medical Journals offer for use with their photos. These are required because the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy within a medical centre and the photo may disclose private personal details.

Parkywiki, I don't think you need any special documentation for your video other than to satisfy yourself that the subject has given permission to be filmed and that they are happy that what you've captured will be made available to the public. If WMF wish to make use of these videos for a certain promotional purpose then they are required to satisfy themselves that they can use these videos for this purpose. If you are already aware of what purpose the videos are to be used for, then you can talk with WMF about whether they want any written consent. It might be useful for you to privately retain contact info (name/phone/email/address) for those you have videoed in case you wish to get in touch later. Wrt other people using the videos, this is not typically Commons concern. It is up to the re-user to ensure they are legal entitled to publish the image. You will see people on Commons mention "Personality rights" but my understanding is that is largely a US issue and in the UK one doesn't have many such rights. (IANAL). -- Colin (talk)

File:Symbol redirect arrow with gradient.svg

User:Thryduulf contested {{PD-shape}} on Symbol redirect arrow with gradient.svg.

  1. I believe the arrow symbol is not copyrightable, existing in electrical schematics before 1928 and likely countless sources (U+21B3: ).
  2. The gradient adds little to the copyright claims being a simple linear gradient from CSS color names NAVY to BLUE.
  3. I was able to reproduce it in Microsoft Word using Block Shape "Bent-Up Arrow".
  4. In the United States slavish reproduction of a work does not entitle the work additional copyright protection. So being rendered in SVG code does not entitle it to any additional copyright.

Dispenser (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • The symbol is not the same as the unicode character (significantly different proportions), the gradient on it's own is not copyrightable but in combination with the arrow it might be? The main reason I objected though, which Dispenser doesn't mention at all, is that this was derived from a work licensed as cc-by-sa, which is why I licensed the file as such (if it was all my own work I'd most likely have gone for cc-by at most). Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
    • A simple gradient on a (simple) object makes no copyright.
    • The @source-file has also absolutely low TOO. A simple shadow drop of a circle around a symbol has absolutely no TOO. As we can see here: File:Plus-,minus-,and equality-sign.png is PD, so all simple symbols with it should be relicensed too, as this kind of combination (circle center) is also one of the most simplest conceivable. -- User: Perhelion 04:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In general, I would prefer not changing any CC licensed file to PD-shape. The shape itself is likely PD in the U.S., and the gradient probably doesn't push it over the edge. But, it's also possible the SVG code itself, if written by hand, could have its own copyright separate from the graphic output it produces -- you can have two SVGs that produce the exact same image, but if the coding of them was creative enough, it's possible for them to have separate copyrights. Of course, SVGs generated from a drawing program would not have that status. But... the main reason is that the threshold of originality differs greatly between countries. Even if PD-shape does indeed apply in many countries (perhaps even enough to make PD-shape a valid license here), a CC license applies worldwide even if a particular country's law is different, so it reduces a lot of the uncertainty of re-use. So even if a PD tag would apply in some countries, it is best to leave a CC tag as well, since the PD tag may not apply in *all* countries and removing the CC license could then harm re-use in some countries if a user was unaware of the valid CC license which had been there. That can even apply for a PD-Art photo, since the CC license could aid re-use in the UK, for example. For that reason, I would rarely replace a CC license on a file, if there is any aspect which it applies to which could be considered copyrightable in some countries, in particular threshold situations. Probably best to just leave it, though it may be justified to add PD-shape, that can be a confusing set of licenses unless carefully explained. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Permission to use Jeff Bezo's image

Hi there!

I am rather new here and wanted to make sure I can use Jeff Bezo's image thats uploaded on wikimedia under the CC lisence. I need it for an info-graphic that I'm creating and would want a cropped headshot. The infographic would have headshots of 4 other prominent CEOs (I intend to take their headshots from wikimedia as well) and as a whole would be a copyright for the company i'm working for. I intend to give attribution to wikimedia and a link at the end of the infographic in the sources section.

Please met me know if it would be ok? And is that an appropriate way to give attribution?

Many thanks!

- Naveen

The page of that image contains all necessary information. Specifically the image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic licence. You can use the image if you abide by it. Ruslik (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, You have to attribute the image author, not Wikimedia, and to mention the license. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Bystander selfie

Hi, This proposal is open for more than a month with only 4 opinions given. I think that it is a sound proposal, and that is how a court would rule in most cases. Please comment. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Pkeets' Uploads

Most of the files that user:Pkeets uploaded in 2014 were pulled from web sources, and are not Pkeets own work. Pkeets didn't bother to establish date, author or license for any these uploads. Pkeets simply assumed that old pictures that were probably taken before 1930, anywhere in the world, could be licensed under US-PD-1923, no further questions asked. In at least this one instance, this view was challenged, and the picture subsequently deleted.

What's the correct approach here? Simply request deletion on nearly 100 files (mostly of early 20th century artist who have no other coverage in WP)? Try to establish the correct license with what little information we have? Contact the websites from where the photos were taken, to get all the information right? And what is Pkeets' own view on the matter - after all, I assume good faith.

Best, --Enyavar (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I think each case should be considered individually. For example, File:Henriette Beaumesnil.jpg (though of such low resolution and quality that details get lost) is, given its style, with near certainty a contemporary, 18th-century or very early 19th-century engraving of the depicted person (Mademoiselle Beaumesnil, 1748-1813), so that I don't consider it going against COM:PRP to just assume PD-old-100 and PD-1923 in this case. Its creator must be dead for more than 100 years, and engravings usually were published as such (printed in a number of copies) not long after creation. Another example that can be kept is File:Anna-caroline-oury.jpg - here, even the creator is given, it's August Kneisel who died in 1855. On the other hand, I think that File:Lūcija Garūta.jpg should be deleted if no further copyright information is provided. The date given is "1920s" which is not even proof of PD-1923, let alone any form of European/Latvian PD-old. Also File:Anna Maria Klechniowska.jpg: no date, no author, depicted person lived from 1888 to 1973, photo could have been taken in the late 1920s by a person who isn't dead for more than 70 years. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Category:Files with no machine-readable license

Hi, What do we do with these files? Many of them are files uploaded long ago on the English Wikipedia, and copied from there, and with {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}}. Opinions? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no urgency in dealing with these files. The licensing of many, if not most of them, is absolutely fine, just not in the machine-readable form we would like to have here on Commons. However, I don't get why {{CopyrightedFreeUse-Link}} isn't considered a machine-readable license at all, looks basically fine to me? Apart from the parameter 1 (intended for the courtesy link) which is typically not filled out for transferred pictures... Gestumblindi (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Modification of PD-USGov license tags

Please look at this edit request. I took a look at a few other USGov licences and some of them have "in the United States" but some don't (most notably {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}). Should this request be fulfilled? Either way, other licences also should be updated, right? --jdx Re: 14:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Як вставити фото особі на сторінку, якщо фото цієї особи чомусь захищено авторським правом ?

Сторінка:Алекс_Новодворскі, сторінка особи: фото: Завантажив, та ваші модератори його блокують. То як добавити це фото, коли інших нема ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Михайло Коваль (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Шановний Михайло, Вам потрібно скористуватись механізмом надання дозволу від фотографа через систему ОТРС (детальніше: англійською, російською, українською). Без дозволу від авторів файли завантажувати на Вікісховище не можна. Тому я поставлю запит про це на сторінку фотографії і вам потрібно буде зв'язатись з автором і організувати дозвіл для цієї світлини, чи завантажити іншу з таким дозволом, чи яку ви зробили самостійно. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Barbara Jordan statue image

I'm not sure what to do or where to ask about an image that was deleted although the sculptor gave permission:

Thank you for your help and guidance, Robert --Chupacerveza (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chupacerveza. I think there are two copyright-related issues that need to be resolved: (1) the copyright of the photo of the statue and (2) the copyright of the statue itself. If you took the photo of the statue, then (1) is fairly easy to deal with since you can license the photo as your own work; if you did not take the photo, however, then I think you're going to need permssion of the photographer to license it. Regarding (2), you're going to need the permission of the sculptor who created it since it was a 3D-work displayed in the United States where there is no freedom of panorama for such artistic works. If you've resolved both (1) and (2), then my suggestion is to contact Ruthven at User talk:Ruthven since they were the administrator who deleted the file according to Commons:Deletion requests/File:BarbaraJordan.JPG. Deleted files are not really gone forever; they are only hidden. Such files can be fairly easily restored once their proper licensing has been verified. Doing so could be as simple as providing proper verification of the licensing to Commons OTRS, so there's no real need to re-upload the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
@Chupacerveza: Hello! Marchjuly couldn't have been clearer. Just forward the mail (or the written permission) you have from the sculptor to OTRS (follow the guidelines at COM:OTRS) and-if the authorization is under a license that we can use here-the file will be undeleted in a couple of months. --Ruthven (msg) 07:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

File:National congress.jpg

Hello. I don't know what to do with this file. It appears to be a well-known painting of a famous man (Abul Kalam Azad, dead 1958), and I have no idea who the author is. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I tagged it onto the already ongoing deletion discussion concerning Logicacoma's other uploads. It seems the uploader is ignoring that discussion to continue to disruptively upload other people's works with false authorship claims. I guess he or she is trying to get blocked. LX (talk, contribs) 17:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Renewal records webpage

In Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#United_States there is a dead link, at the beginning, to a renewal records for books and maps web page. Do you know another source where look for renewal records--Pierpao.lo (listening) 17:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there is an archive version here. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Image of me at a Wikimedia event

User Bearian at Wikipedia Editathon Art and Feminism

Stephliana took this image of me today at a Wikipedia event. I haven't used the OTRS system for copyright permission. Have I uploaded this correctly? Bearian (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Bearian, I don't see any problem with the upload since the photographer is a Wikimedian and I assumed in good faith that they permitted you to upload the image to Commons under a free license. If they agree to release it into the public domain, you can change the license to {{PD-User|Stephliana}}. See other images like this at Category:Wikimedians. All the best. Wikicology (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks much. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding cigarette packs and copyright


I've been browsing the Tobacco packaging warning messages as of recently and I would like to expand the information on there. I am a collector of cigarette packs and I have a lot of packs from all over the world, which I want to upload here through Wikimedia for everyone to use.

I have tried looking through all the guides but they're so complex and, at times, a tad too vague for my senses that I did not find the right kind of information. I've also tried looking through the archive, and only one question was posted there before, but that did not adhere to my own question, so I felt like posting it here directly.

Would I encounter any problems if I, for example, wanted to post a picture of a Moroccan pack of Marlboro Red or Gold on here? It's my own work and not from any site, but I feel like I may get in trouble regarding the copyright of said company. I've seen various pictures being posted before, but I don't want to take any risks regarding that.

I currently live in The Netherlands, but I have no idea what the laws are in various other countries regarding the copyright of the taboacco brands in other countries. Is it possible to get a more concrete answer or at least a heads up of what countries have specific copyright laws regarding said copyright?



--MatteoNL97 (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2017 (CET)

Denver Museum of Nature and Science photos

Do File:Vasily Konovalenko Bosom Pals, IV.DMF.1-15.c.jpg, File:Vasily Konovalenko Barrel Bath detail, IV.DMF.1-6.d.jpg, File:Vasily Konovalenko Spring, IV.DMF.1-14.m.jpg, File:Vasily Konovalenko Prisioners detail, IV.DMF.1-20.l.jpg and File:Vasily Konovalenko Mower, IV.DMF.1-11.g.jpg need to have their licensing verified by OTRS? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


Dear colleagues,

here exists Template:PD-RusEmpire. May it still be used, i.e. are photos taken in Russian Empire before the Russian Revolution are eligible for uploading here?

If yes, does it matter whether or not the photographer's name is known (provided that the date when the photo was taken is known)? What if the date of death of the photographer is not known?

What if it not known whether or not the photo was published earlier? Should be general Template:PD-Old used then with 1897 cut-off year?

Does it matter if the photo is from personal archive?

What is the practice here?

(For the reference: there it clause 3 of article 1281 of Russian Civil Law: Исключительное право на произведение, обнародованное после смерти автора, действует в течение семидесяти лет после обнародования произведения, считая с 1 января года, следующего за годом его обнародования, при условии, что произведение было обнародовано в течение семидесяти лет после смерти автора. - my rough translation: Copyright in work, that was made available for the public first time after death of the author, is protected 70 years after it was made available for the public, counting from January 1st of the year after year then it was made available for the public, provided that the work was made available for the public within 70 years after the author's death.)

I appreciate your comments. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It can be used if the image in question was "published on territory of the Russian Empire (Russian Republic) except for territories of the Grand Duchy of Finland and Congress Poland before 7 November 1917 and wasn't re-published for 30 days following initial publications on the territory of Soviet Russia or any other states." Ruslik (talk) 18:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
How can we prove the image was published? How can we know it for sure? --PereslavlFoto (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! But what to do if we don't know name of the author and/or date of his/her death? Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 20:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of File:Flag of the Arab League.svg

Why is this image PD? If it is the uploaders' "own work", it is clearly a derivative work of the original flag of which the copyright status is not clear. --Wcam (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If the user created the flag based on Heraldic information (as stated in the description), it should not be considered as a DW, therefore, {{PD-self}} is perfectly valid. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictures of the Indian Army and Navy

Hi, You may be aware that there have been numerous discussions about the copyright status of these images. Wikimedia India has started working on a request for improving the license: [4]. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure whether the logo of the international children's charity Lumos meets the threshold of originality in the United States. Here is a link to the logo on the English Wikipedia Tk420 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Probably not. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


Is the Virgin Group logo copyrightable in the UK? --George Ho (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Why do you ask it? Which is your scope? In the UK is protected by trademark rules. I'm in doubt that is enough original to be copyrighted? But again why do you ask it? Do you think that should be deleted? George Ho--Pierpao.lo (listening) 20:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
No, no. I'm just curious. By the way, w:File:Virgin.svg exists in en wiki but is tagged as nontransferable to Commons (but free only in the US). Here's the history. --George Ho (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, here's COM:TOO#United Kingdom, which says that most logos are unacceptable as the Edge logo ruling set the originality standards very low. --George Ho (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes you have a point. Maybe is copyrightable in the UK--Pierpao.lo (listening) 21:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the derivative File:Virgin Trains East Coast logo, JPG.jpg is released with CC license. What to do about it? --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
But, why you think Virgil actually released its DW using its logo under a CC license? This is the same case a the Windows 7 wallpaper posted by Microsoft Sweden under a CC license. And about the Threshold of originality, I see this as a borderline case. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The source said so. BTW, I didn't see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Virgin-logo.svg, which occurred in November 2016. However, that one lacked participation but was kept as "PD-textlogo". --George Ho (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-Albania-exempt}} and football clubs logos

FYI, {{PD-Albania-exempt}} was modified by Kj1595 in a manner that it now covers (or not?) logos of Albanian football clubs. There is an ongoing deletion discussion on some affected logo: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Golemi FC Logo.svg (pinging Marchjuly). But this is not a singular case, Kj1595 has transferred from many other such logos, and a wider consensus is needed in order to establish if are these logos suitable for Commons or not. XXN, 22:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Just for reference, I did consider nominating all of the files tagged in such a way for deletion per COM:MDR, but, as XXN points out above, there are really quite a large number of files (it looks to be well over 100) that Kj1595 has been tagging this way. I looked at the url being provided on the template which is supposed to show that all these images are in the public domain, and I wasn't able to find such a thing clearly stated. There is some mention of clubs being jointly owned, but no specific mention of who owns the branding, etc. To be fair, the source website is not in English and I used Google translate, which can sometimes not be 100% accurate. Another thing, is that the "PD-Albania-exempt" is also being used for other non-football team logos as well, such as File:Alpha Bank.svg File:TV Klan.svg and File:ABC News Albania.svg, etc. While it's true that some of these files may be ineligible for copyright protection for one reason or another, it does kind of seem as if the "Albania-exempt" may be being used to cover all Albania images regardless of whether it is really applicable: en:Alpha Bank is described as a "Greek bank", while en:TV Klan and en:ABC News (Albania) are described as private stations. Moreover, some of the files tagged such as File:Besa Kavajë Club Logo.svg appear to be recreation of files deleted via a deletion request, e.g.,Commons:Deletion requests/File:Besa Kavajë Logo.svg. Changing a copyright template in such a way seems to be a pretty big change because of the number of files which may be possibly affected. It seems that there should be a strong community consensus to do such a thing to make sure (1) it's an appropriate change and (2) it's done correctly. I believe the change was made in good faith, but it seems a little too bold to be something done without any serious discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Polish tennis photos

Hi, performed a search on 'tennis' (tenisowe) at the Polish site Zbiory NAC on-line and would like to know if the results are free of copyright and can be uploaded to Commons? Most of these photos are from the period of the mid 1920s to the late 1930s and as far as I checked do not have a known author (example 1, example 2). Found a number of other photos from Zbiory NAC on-line on Commons (including this writer and this tennis player) and they use the {{PD-Polish}} tag. Can these 1920s/1930s images with no author be used on Commons?--Wolbo (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Any guidance on this? --Wolbo (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There is much more images from NAC, I think @Polimerek can help you with that. Yarl ✉️️  14:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wolbo With pictures from NAC there is a problem, that they are probably PD - but NAC itself has no good documentation of authorship of these pictures. Moreover the terms of use of NAC forbids machine downloads and they block them. So - on Commons there are around 500 of them: Category:Images from the Polish NAC Archive but they were uploaded manually usually after analysis of the probability if they are indeed PD. We were talking with NAC about potential cooperation - but the problem is their poor copyright documentation which they inherited after II WW destruction of Polish Archives and 30 years of communist party governance of Poland... Polimerek (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Polimerek: thanks for the response and the explanation of the NAC situation. The Category:Images from the Polish NAC Archive already contains a number of images of Jadwiga Jędrzejowska which were also part of my search on tennis players. To the best of my knowledge the images I'm seeking to upload are very similar or identical in terms of their classification on the NAC website. I uploaded two images (Sarah Fabyan and Anita Lizana), can you indicate if these meet the requirements as set by the current NAC images on Commons? The manual uploading requirement is not an issue for me. --Wolbo (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Emma Frost by Nig PS.jpg

Just giving a heads up to the discussion at Commons:Village pump#File:Emma_Frost_by_Nig_PS.jpg regarding apparent fan art of a copyrighted character. Please weigh in at that discussion. -Animalparty (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

pictures and Pd-Gov

Please someone expert could talk in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roman Romulo portrait.jpg--Pierpao.lo (listening) 11:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I am giving the associated Wikipedia article en:Roman Romulo a GA Review. The infobox photo has gotten tagged with a deletion notice etc. I cannot finish up or proceed with my Review until this matter is settled. Shearonink (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


Can you us help? and thank you Szajci pošta 18:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Permission to reproduce for educational and promotional is not the same as a en:free license. Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Painting of Ginger Goodwin.jpg

Does more specific information about this painting need to be provided for it to be OK for Commons? The person depicted in the painting is en:Albert Goodwin, who died in 1918, so it's possible the painting itself is quite old. I have not, however, been able to find anything online about the painter Lynnda E. Solfield. It seems possible that this might be some form of {{PD-ART}} or {{Licensed-PD-Art}}, but I'm not sure what information is needed to verify such a thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The image is in public domain if the painter had died before 1947. Ruslik (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Ruslik. Is there a way to verify that? I tried googling the painter's name, but came up empty. I also tried "Lynda E. Solfield" and "Linda E. Solfield", but also found nothing. Perhaps the uploader Antifascistferret can provide clarification. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No way, unless you can locate the information about the painter. Ruslik (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The file has been nominated for deletion by another editor at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Painting of Ginger Goodwin.jpg so perhaps the uploader will respond there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC) ‎

Hi everyone, sorry for being so late to this party. The Painting resides at the Cumberland Museum and Archives in Cumberland, BC. There is a tag below it, which I have a photo of if you need me to upload it, which reads " Oil Painting of Ginger Goodwin Artist : Lynnda E. Solfield, Langley, WA, USA Donated by RD Bond during Miner's Memorial Weekend June 14 2014" I am also able to contact the museum to get more information if needed. Antifascistferret (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

you might want to get an com:OTRS email creative commons release from the artist, and use artwork template so you can separate the artist and photographer rights. it will get deleted before, but restored in 60-90 days when the OTRS backlog gets around to noticing - please use the suggested boilerplate. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Cartoons from John F. Knott

There is a bunch of cartoons from en:John F. Knott, which mostly seem to come from a Flickr account of a university library (@, it seems, you or your bot have uploaded them). Apart from that many of them are lacking any category (they all lack cat. John F. Knott) I do not understand the copyright situation here: J.F. Knot died in 1963 – how can a university library claim to own the copyrights? Not all of the images are from before 1923, so there is enough potential for some copyvios. If you want to take a look on your own: Search results for „insource:"john francis knott"“ - Wikimedia Commons. — Speravir – 01:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Do raise a DR. Those pre 1923 are PD, the rest may be not. -- (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
no - this is a perennial issue, see also Commons:No known restrictions. it is a long standing precedent you will not be able to overturn. do not second guess library professionals, you are not one. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
For ease of reference, there is Category:John F. Knott, and a 1918 book which verifies many pre-1923 publications. The Library of Congress explicitly addresses (here) the rights and restrictions of Knott's (presumably post-1923) material. Tangentially, and to Slowking4, anecdotally, I've seen some questionable content on Flickr and Internet Archive, even posted by scholarly sources, that begs a closer look: e.g. some material may be public domain in the U.S. but not in country of origin ,(thus unacceptable on Commons) or has a convoluted history of licenses and no clear public domain status (see this discussion). Animalparty (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
as we know, US copyright law is a screwed up mess - Es ist verrückt. it is not binary, it is not subject to a date formula. there are tranches. there is an orphan works hole. the best you can do is search and report back. this is the plain meaning of "No known restrictions" it is hard to prove a negative.
you could argue like the Authors Guild that: "librarians are a bunch of pirates just like google", but they lost that case, Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust. whose side are you on? flickr allows people to report "No known restrictions" on items. we have very little problem with these items, except explaining them to europeans every six months.
if you want to review flickr licenses, go for it, but orphan work review is notoriously hard. if you want to review country of origin, just start at template:PD-art, there are 561387. (this is not the case here) i've got plenty of work to do fixing metadata, and fixing rotted source links which are everywhere. there are many german auction catalog sources that are gone forever. are we going to trust the uploaders there? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Knott apparently worked for the Dallas Morning News, and it appears that the the newspaper never filed any full-issue renewals (just when contributors filed renewals on their own for individual articles -- see here), so it seems likely that the copyright on any cartoons first published there has expired. A quick Google search on Knott's name in the copyright entries volumes only gives hits on the 1918 compilation, which has expired regardless. If a library was given personal archives, those could still be under copyright, but copyright may also have been transferred to the library. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
and he published other books, [5] for which i do not find a renewal. just to close the circle, maybe i should swing by the library of congress and scan them to confirm these works' publication date. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Using this site's images in a book: What to include in a credit line and where to put it in a book

Hi, I would like to use images from this site in a book I'm writing.

I looked at the Copyright information on this site but can't find exactly what to include in a credit line and where to put it in the book.

For Attributions where do I state the Credit Line (source/author)? If I copy and paste an image's browser address on the Images Sources List in the Bibliography would that be enough? If not, do I need to add the name of the source with it? Could I list the browser address in the Bibliography and put the Source under or beside the image (ex. Courtesy: John Smith)? Is there anything else I need to put?

Thank you, Todd — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddRivard (talk • contribs) 19:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please, see Commons:Attribution and Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction! Todd :) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Importing from Google Photos

One of my cyclist friends regularly publishes photos from his journeys on Google Photos, example. The photos more often than not display encyclopedic objects of Moldova, such as natural reserves, rivers, roads, or panoramics of settlements. Which is the best (and easiest) way to convert these pictures to a free license like CC-BY-SA-4.0, given that I can convince my friend to tag the pictures as such? My first thought was adding a text description with the license confirmation to the albums, but I don't see any description for the albums in Google Photos. Other ideas? //  Gikü  said  done  Wednesday, 22 March 2017 20:22 (UTC)

If the web-gallery or whatever doesn’t provide any place for the licence as text, perhaps it could be made into an image and uploaded among the photos. Better might be putting it in the metadata attached to each file, which usually has a field for copyright info; there are various EXIF-editing applications that don’t require opening & resaving the whole image. Otherwise, a permission letter to COM:OTRS confirming ownership of the Google Photos account, and licensing everything sourced from there, ought to work.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, we went the OTRS letter way. //  Gikü  said  done  Friday, 24 March 2017 16:36 (UTC)

US Gov. image is a cropped version

File:Kheli.jpg is sourced to but it is a cropped image. I've found an original (or at least uncropped) version at e.g. butthey have not specified any author or attribution to the US Gov to substanciate that it is their work. Can we assume (assert) that this uncropped version is a work by the US Gov., or do we need to nomiate the cropped version for deletion? (tJosve05a (c) 15:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the uncropped version, of course, has the same copyright status as the cropped version. You can nominate the cropped version for deletion (after uploading uncropped one) as it is of low quality. Ruslik (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
That is assuming it is a US Gov. work in the first place, which they did not specify on the website, just us assuming it is. (tJosve05a (c) 20:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
A tineye search throws up several copies but the 2008 image on this webpage is several years older than the theworldaffairscouncils image from 2011. These are tineye crawl dates but are a good indication, so I'd suggest it is in fact a US government work but it may even be from 2006 based on her appointment date. Ww2censor (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright on the reproduction of a grant of arms.


There are several reproductions of recent grants of arms issued by British heraldic authorities in the category:grants of arms, such as File:Ari_Norman_Family_Coat_of_Arms_Certificate.jpg (college of arms) or File:Full Arms document.jpeg (court of the Lord Lyon). Does anyone know if there is a copyright on the emblazonements painted on these documents and whose copyright it is :

  • The herald painter's copyright ?
  • A crown copyright ?
  • A copyright transfered to the grantee and therefore cessible to commons ?

Thank you all Kathisma (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


There is no indication on the source url that it has been released under a "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" as claimed. The logo seems simple per COM:TOO#United States, but there is nothing about Lithuania at COM:TOO. Should this be relicensed as {{PD-textlogo}} or should it be treated as fair use? For reference, there is a non-free version uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as en:File:Lithuanian-Football-Federation-logo.png which would probably be no longer be needed if the Commons version is OK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It is relatively complex. So, it may be not {{PD-textlogo}}. Ruslik (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not a text logo. I think it's above the TOO for the US, but I have absolutely no idea where Lithuania draws the line. They are an EU member, however... and I think the EU would protect this. I suggest a DR. - Reventtalk 11:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ruslik0, Revent: Thank you for taking a look at this. I've started a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/File:LFF-logo.jpg. Perhaps that will help sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Is modification of PD-USGov license tags needed?

I think that this is a very important issue so I post it once again because my previous entry was left without a comment. I have found it when I tried to fulfil this edit request. I looked at a few other USGov licences and some of them have "in the United States" but some don't (most notably {{PD-USGov-POTUS}}). Should this request be fulfiled? Either way, other licences also should be updated because they should be consistent, right? I expect an opinion from (US) copyright law gurus; perhaps someone could push the issue higher, to the Wikimedia's law department. --jdx Re: 06:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I have just noticed Carl Lindberg's comment under the request. Unfortunately, it doesn't give a hint to a techie like me. IMO it has to be decided whether to add or remove phrase "in the United States" to/from all USGov licences. --jdx Re: 06:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

no one cares. no one else thinks it is important. there is no case law for the US claiming copyright over works in foreign places. (there was a false DMCA take-down but it is ancient history Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: The licenses should indeed be consistent. I think the technically correct answer is that 17 USC 105 does not actually place works in the public domain (a meaningless concept, in a legal sense), it instead specifically states that works of the US government are not protected under 17 USC. Works of the US government are eligible for protection in other nations if eligible under their local law... it just appears both that the US government has never sought to enforce those rights, and that most nations would not do so if they tried. The Berne Convention specifically allows that "it shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the protection to be granted to official texts of a legislative, administrative and legal nature, and to official translations of such texts".
It's thus a fair assumption that most works of the US government, if not 'actually' PD worldwide, can be safely treated as so. - Reventtalk 11:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
oh yeah, except where "the Flickr notice is irrelevant" lol [6]; [7]. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Guide on renewal lookup/search

Do we have a guide on copyright renewal lookup/search? I see some old threads and [8] for books, but I'd rather link to a single page with directions on how to do renewal lookup. czar 20:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: There is not one single place that gives you all the answers you need. Some of the links you have already found are good. Books are one thing, art and paintings are another, so it depends what you want to check. I have some useful links listed on my userpage that might help you. Ww2censor (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I found the Stanford project to be quite useful. Nemo logged out 10:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
here you go there is a separate volume for images, and recordings each year. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright-law-by-country categories

Do we have any project categories grouping copyright-related pages by country? For example, we could put {{PD-Polish}}, {{Cc-by-sa-2.5-pl}}, {{Cc-by-2.0-pl}}, {{Cc-by-3.0-pl}}, and {{MONCopyright}} all into the same category, together with the copyright-status categories that these templates transclude, e.g. Category:CC-BY-3.0-PL, together with Category:Polish FOP cases, and if someone created a Commons:Copyright in Poland page, it too would go there. I'm tempted to create such a system of categories, but I'm not about to do it unless I know that we don't already have such a system that I merely haven't discovered. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

There is Category:License tags by country which has only Italy for a nation-level and a subcategory Category:PD license tags by country for types of licence. This could certainly be expanded. De728631 (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Pinging @Nyttend: just in case you didn't read my first response. De728631 (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Connect4Climate Overview Presentation - July 2016.pdf

This file (files?) looks like it is PDFs of a PowerPoint presentation. It's licensed as "own work" under a "cc-by-sa-4.0". Does permission need to be received for this becasue of the various photos and logos being used on the inner pages? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If those logos and photos were authorized by different people then the answer is yes. Ruslik (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Contradictions in copyright terms of use in the US

Repeatedly, I run across images that contain the highlighted statement "This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights." This statement is included in a box that states that the image still needs a reason why it is public domain in the US. Isn't this contradictory? Is it free to use in the US or not? I've roamed all over this site trying to find the answer to this question to no avail--I have to believe I'm just misunderstanding something. Can anyone help? 2600:1004:B024:F69:8597:8E46:75F0:1B67 18:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Since this exist for {{PD-old-100}}, is very unlikely these works are still protected (if a work has been created several centuries ago, nobody will care about that text). --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@ 2600:1004:B024:F69:8597:8E46:75F0:1B67:
You are not misunderstanding. It is a known problem. It originated when one user, from his personal (and unfortunately mistaken) initiative, decided to insert the statement ("This file has been identified...") into some "PD-(something)" templates. It happened circa the end of 2010. The user wanted to mimic the PD Mark of Creative Commons. See one example of his edits there. (However, on some templates, such as those of the "PD-old" series, you can't directly see this user's edits anymore, because the histories of those templates have been deleted by a sysop in 2015 (this should not have been done because those histories contained essential information about the evolution of those old and important templates), and the problematic statement was simply copied to new 2015 avatars of the templates.) To make things worse, the bad example has been copied to other templates by inexperienced users, see for example there.
Of course, this bit added to the templates is inappropriate and misleading (as you have correctly noticed) and its presence in the templates is also in contradiction with the usage for which this mark is intended. (See this CC explanation: "The PDM is intended for use with old works that are free of copyright restrictions around the world, or works that have been affirmatively placed in the worldwide public domain prior to the expiration of copyright by the rights’ holder. It should not be used to mark works that are in the public domain in some jurisdictions while known to be restricted by copyright in others. Currently, Creative Commons does not recommend the Public Domain Mark for works whose copyright status differs jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though we are developing means for marking and tagging such works.")
Since then, the problem has been noticed and mentioned several times. See for example this Village Pump section. I suppose that experienced users of Commons know that the misleading statement must be ignored and they have come to not see it anymore. However, other readers can be puzzled (like you were) or they can be misled. The problematic addition should have been removed long ago (ideally, the additions should have been reverted immediately after they were made). It is easy to fix. It suffices to remove the "footer" template that was added to the pages of the templates. Unfortunately, some of the affected templates are protected, which means that it takes a sysop to repair them. But sysops have been sleeping on the switch. Some have just not been paying attention and are unaware of the situation, some have a careless approach to this type of situation or just don't realize how wrong it is. So, it's still not fixed. I have good hope that eventually responsible sysops will wake up and fix this problem. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

My concern is with photos of paintings, some of which qualify for life+70 terms. In any case, in the US it is not the creation date that generally matters, but the publication date. If the painting has never been published, then it is public domain on the basis of the artist's life plus 70 by the Copyright Act of 1976. There is an exception, though, in that a painting that had not been published before 1978 but then WAS published between 1/1/1978 and 12/31/2002 becomes protected until 2047. I'm not concerned about whether anyone still cares about a painting, but about the legality of it. I'm assuming that the statement that the item still needs an explanation of why it is public domain in the US is trying to take this into account. For example, if it was published (rather than created) before 1923. If we have publication data, the issue is resolved. In the absence then the general statement that there are no known restrictions could lead to trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:1004:b024:f69:e1ba:6652:184f:b5a0 (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2017‎ (UTC)

you are making up difficulties, where no one cares. the case law is driven by people who care. it will be rare for life + 70 to apply to US artists, for paintings in museums before 1989. see also Commons:Publication#United_States. Category:PD US no notice happens a lot also. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but I'm not having much luck in following it. I also can't find the reference above to "Sander v. Ginkel's Revenge. In any case, let me try to restate the essence of my concern. First, as far as copyright law and Wikimedia goes, whether "anyone cares" is immaterial. Wikimedia has gone to tremendous lengths to try to comply with relevant intellectual property law, as its tag system clearly shows. It's my understanding that for an image to appear on the commons, it must be freely available BOTH in the US and its country of origin. The category of images I'm asking about usually have been shown to be public domain in the (Non-US) country of origin. But then the propriety of using the image seems to be qualified by the inclusion of a box stating that an explanation of why it is public domain in the US still must be provided. In the same box, there's a statement that "This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights." Surely the Commons must have a REASON for stating that the US justification is still needed. If I can't find out the US justification, I can't use the image. The "free of known restrictions" line simply complicates the issue. It makes the box as a whole internally contradictory, and makes for confusion in the use of materials on the Commons. Which part of the box can we believe in (if either) and how is such an internal consistency even allowed to occur? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:1004:B024:F69:50D7:1C78:6004:BF65 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

sorry, i can find it; i'm sorry, i do not share your concern; you realize how few DMCA takedowns of artworks there are? it is a low risk area; thanks for restating you vehemence about copyright; fine, go do the metadata research of origin. start with Template:PD-Art, you have 561434 to do; the "no known copyright" is established precedent, based on american orphan works practices. i am not confused. see also Commons:No known restrictions. i have far more pressing matters, like the 300000 images without any metadata. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: If you have far more pressing matters to address, then why don't you spend your time doing so instead of answering legitimate questions in a manner that is both not helpful, but borderline hostile? - Reventtalk 10:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
because it is not "legitimate". an editor wants "place of origin" when no museum has it in the metadata. go pull all the catalogs, and input the data by hand. is that a hostile answer? i have seen such false perfectionism from banned users - is this he? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: When a person asks a question that includes the phrase "I have to believe I'm just misunderstanding something", and your response starts "you are making up difficulties, where no one cares", yes, you are being hostile, or at least grossly unhelpful. - Reventtalk 22:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
when a person uploads photos and get a wall of templated rejection, that is "hostile, or at least grossly unhelpful". i am modeling my behavior on the behavior of admins. when an anon phone editor finds VP, and asks faux naif open ended questions, that is a wolf is sheep's clothing. you can say it is a proto-deletionist you would want to nurture, but i am not going to help you. let the editor go talk to a museum professional and learn something about art. for more faux naif antics - see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Monkey selfie at Wikimania 2014. i see a resemblance, do you? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I think we generally assume that publication happened around the time of creation in most cases, unless there is some documentation or indication something was kept private for some time. So for most pre-1923 paintings, {{PD-1923}} is the usual assumption. For foreign works, we also usually assume publication (without copyright notice), and the U.S. status would then depend on URAA restorations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@2600:1004:B024:F69:50D7:1C78:6004:BF65: The answer that we can reasonably give is unsatisfactory. Commons hosts, at the moment I am posting this, 37,798,361 files. While we try to, as much as we are able, verify the copyright status of every file, it is simply impossible to do so authoritatively... there are many images (probably millions) that are marked as PD in the source nation, by 'random' contributors (in most cases naive), and marked as needing a rationale for their US copyright status. For (I hope) most, the US status should be obvious, due to age.
In all cases, the Commons:General disclaimer applies (specifically the section on responsibility). We are a volunteer project, frequently overwhelmed by the mass of new contributions. We do the best we can, but cannot offer legal advice. If you wish to use a work for purposes that might subject you to liability, you should seek legal advice that we cannot give. - Reventtalk 04:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, gentlemen, for both of your answers. They're generally consistent with what I've assumed must be the case. In the interest of minimizing confusion, though, I might suggest finding some way to prevent "free of known restrictions" statements (which appear very authoritative) from appearing in the "still needs a reason for PD status in the US) box. I don't know how to do that, of course. Maybe the techies do. Unhappily, I've decided that I can use Wikimedia only as a way of fishing for images, most of which will require considerable additional research. At least now I am clear on this. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

why is the File:ITC GolgiTheories Copy.jpg legal?

Hello. I'm a newcomer, so I am probably wrong about this. However, I am trying to improve the article golgi apparatus, and I looked at the File:ITC GolgiTheories Copy.jpg and found that on the link it came from there is a clear indication that they have indicated no commercial use. I thought that all US government work was in the public domain, but if they say non-commercial, who's to say what's correct? JeanOhm (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I just checked, and the person credited with the image is not on the NIH staff. JeanOhm (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It could be that the image was created previously, and subsequently reproduced in an NIH publication, in which case it would not necessarily be Public Domain. The source publication Inside the Cell appears to utilize several images that are possibly not free (those labeled "courtesy of..." or otherwise crediting an author), while many illustrations do not appear to be credited at all. Animalparty (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Animalparty:I understand what you wrote, but now I need advice about what to do next. I am going to be improving the article that uses the file, and since I am uncomfortable with the legality of using it, is there somebody else I should contact to ask them to rule on whether it is legal or should be removed? It actually isn't a very good image, IMHO, and I wouldn't mind haing an excuse to remove it! 8-) JeanOhm (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated the image for deletion and removed it from the golgi article. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello.Is this source free?Please review these pictures.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Their page "Open Access" says At Frontiers, the entire content of all present and past journals is immediately and permanently accessible online free of charge and published under the CC-BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and the source are credited.. This means that the content is free enough to be used on Wikimedia Commons. File:Typical deep brain stimulation setup.jpg is a good example of how to credit the author(s). --rimshottalk 20:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rimshot:Thanks for the explanation.But why "cc-by-3.0"?And why there is no license for this website? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
At the source page for File:Typical deep brain stimulation setup.jpg there is a link to CC-by version 3.0 on the right side of the website in "Publishing Dates". If 3.0 is their standard license, we should perhaps create a custom licence tag for this website. De728631 (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I just found another note from the relevant journal's homepage: [9]: "The current version is CC-BY, version 4.0 (, and the licence will automatically be updated as and when updated by the Creative Commons organisation." So it will change over time whenever CC releases a new version. Given that there are only a few uploads from this journal I'd now say we don't need a custom licence template. De728631 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Peru and the URAA

Following this thread at the UnDR, there are some issues about the interpretation of the Copyright Law of Peru, in fact, two: The 1961 one (in spanish), an the one created in 1996 (at the URAA date) (in Spanish) (also in English).

In summary, the 1996 Copyright Law don't have retroactive effects (this is specified in the Law itself) for works covered under the 1961 Copyright Law, in other words, the Copyright in Peru was not restored by URAA.

Following is my interpretation of the relevant parts of the 1961 Law:

  • Copyright expiration (in general) is PMA and heirs + 50 years (Art. 21)
  • For «Cession of rights» cases, Copyright expiration is PMA + 30 years for the Author (not the cessioner) (Art. 22)
  • For works from the State, Municipalities, Official Corporations and Juridical Persons (like enterprises), copyright expiration is 25 years instead, according to the rest of the Law (depending the kind of the work) (Art. 24)
  • For Collective works, Copyright expiration is PMA of the last co-author + 50 years (Art. 25)
  • For Cinematographic works, copyright expiration is 25 years after the first public exhibition (First published in other words) (Art. 26)
  • For Photographic works, Copyright expiration is 20 years:
  • After the death of the author if the author is known
  • After the first publication if the author is Anonymous or Pseudonymous, or the State, Municipalities, Official Corporations and Juridical Persons

Well, this interpretation should not be considered accurate, since the 1961 Law seems quite unclear for me, but is quite clear the URAA didn't restored the copyright for works covered under the 1961 Copyright Law. Concensus is needed for clearing this issue, and specially, before nominating/deleting any file where we can believe them are already in the PD at the URAA date: These DRs has been applied, IMHO, in wrong grounds:

And a large list of deletions, where the users alleged ignorace of the Law (the Law exist for something, so you shouldn't even apply the COM:PCP if you don't know the legislation of some country).

If concensus is successful, {{PD-Peru-URAA}} should be created with a clear redaction, preferably, by a peruvian user (or at least by a spanish-native talking user), and everything deleted in this context should be restored. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @MarshalN20, Billinghurst, Jameslwoodward as the potentially interested in this case. Peruvian users are specially welcome to discuse here. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like the 1996 Peru law was not retroactive. The wording is very slightly odd in the English translation, but it can be easily read to mean that only works currently under protection of the previous law get extended. Most telling, retroactive laws generally need sections to deal with users who are legally using public domain works which were given retroactive protection -- there is usually some allowance for further use, or use for some period of time, etc. -- the 1996 Peru law has none of that, indicating it was a normal non-retroactive extension.
It does look like a 50pma law previously (I think that is a 1961 law, not 1961). Going by a Google translation, for assigned works in Article 22, it looks like the rights last for 30pma, but would they revert to the original author's heirs for the last 20 years of that term, or become fully public domain? Not sure on that one. If an author died without heirs, it looks like rights ended immediately, but that will be impossible for us to determine. It does look like corporate works were indeed 25 years from publication, as were cinematographic works. I read the photographic term as being 20 years from creation, or at least the year which is on the copies (so maybe publication). Spanish speakers should probably interpret that better. If a photograph was an integral part of a literary or scientific work and owned by the same copyright owner, then the term is the same as that literary or scientific work (i.e. 50pma). I think it says anonymous works are 15 years from publication, unless the author is named in that period (article 30). I think it says that works first published posthumously (article 28), protection is at least 30 years if the year is documented. I think the newer Peru law has a publication right of 10 years for works which have otherwise expired, which is a bit different. There was apparently a 1987 resolution which protected computer programs as literary works, and another amending Law 24518 of June 5, 1986 ( ). That does seem to have slightly affected Article 21, but not the basic terms.
So yes, we probably need a PD-Peru tag which documents all of that. The URAA date occurred before the 1996 law, so that is not relevant to restored works. Of course, anything which complied with U.S. formalities (i.e. published with a copyright notice) may still be under U.S. copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Amitie 10g and Clindberg. I'm glad that this is finally getting a solution. I think it's relevant to also point out that the Peruvian Constitution of 1993 (which is still active) explicitly disapproves the creation of laws with retroactive effects (except in penal matters, and only if it is favorable to the prisoners). I'm not entirely sure why this is the case, but maybe it is related to the Internal Conflict the country was going through during the 1990s.--MarshalN20 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
All sounding good. It does seem that we should revise template:PD-Peru and update Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Peru. I suggest some drafts of both on talk pages would be the way to proceed with links permalinks here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, {{PD-Peru}} was deprecated applying the 1996 Law. Should be a good idea to clone the {{PD-1996}}, but removing the URAA part (as it is not actually relevant). What you thing should be a better idea? Edit {{PD-Peru}} or keep it as is and create a new tag like {{PD-Peru-1961}}? Meanwhile, I'll create it in {{PD-Peru/Sandbox}}. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@MarshalN20: This is an aside, but yes, most countries do not allow retroactive laws, in the sense that if something was legal at time time it was done, you can't make a law that makes such an act illegal and apply it to an action taken before the law came into effect -- that is the general prohibition on "retroactive" laws. A retroactive copyright law is not retroactive in that sense, however -- it is merely creating protection for works which had previously been public domain, going forward. Any past usage would be OK, but continued use into the future could then be a problem. The Berne Convention generally mandates that works (at least foreign works) be retroactively protected to at least 50pma when a country first joins the Convention (which is what brought about the URAA). So, such a provision in a constitution would not have an issue with a retroactive copyright law, if it was decided that was the appropriate way to go. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Clindberg!--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Clindberg: For photos, yes, it says 20 years after the year which is on the copies. That seems to refer to the year required by art. 58, which says that photographic works were protected only when they wore a copyright notice. That notice had to include the year in which the negative image was made. So, indeed, the rule sounds like creation + 20 years, for the photographic works whose copies did have the notice. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

«The Peruvian copyright law of April 23, 1996, which entered in force on May 24, 1996, states in its transitional provisions that "[works] protected under the previous legislation shall benefit from the longer terms of protection provided for in this law".»

the Law mentions retroactive effects, but, as the Peruvian lawyer Rubén Ugarteche Villacorta mentioned in his publication (page 15):

«Como es lógico, el aumento de los plazos de protección no se aplica retroactivamente y en consecuencia las obras que ya se encontraban en el dominio público, por extinción de los plazos de protección previstos en las leyes anteriores, no se benefician de los nuevos plazos y por tanto no retornan al dominio privado.»

«As is logical, the augmentation of protection times is not applied retroactively and, in consequences, those works that were already found in the public domain, due to the expiration of their copyright protection from previous laws, do not benefit from the new copyright terms and therefore do not return to the private domain.»

Why? The Constitution of 1993 explicitily forbids the retractive effects in Laws (except the Penal one), making that part of the Law just invalid. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The English translation of the Spanish text is not entirely accurate. The Spanish text is simply not referring to a retroactive application; it's just referring to those works still under protection in 1996. According to Ugarteche, it seems that the Peruvian government does not consider this application as retroactive, but rather just a continuing enforcement of the copyright status.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
First, the constitution's mention of retroactive laws has no bearing on retroactive copyright laws, as I mentioned just above. However, if you replace "[works]" with "[works currently]" as the assumed text in the law, then you have a non-retroactive law. I think it's perfectly reasonable to interpret it that way -- usually retroactive laws are worded more carefully to make the retroactive effect clear. If a work is public domain, it is no longer protected by the previous law. Plus, as mentioned earlier, there are no law sections dealing with people legally using public domain works which become re-protected; for most retroactive laws (at least in countries that actually enforce copyright) there would be sections of law dealing with that situation, and there is none in Peru's. So, I would say an interpretation that it was retroactive is not correct (but that has nothing to do with Peru's constitution). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Editions to {{PD-Peru}}

I created this template in Sandbox. It is basically a clone of {{PD-1996}} and corrections should be made. Comments should be placed here. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I removed the URAA requiriments and kept only the last part of the meeting, because Peru has already relationships with the United States at 1961 [10]. Should be this enough? --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification.
Continuing with the concensus, I invite you and everyone interested to see the{{PD-Peru/Sandbox}}, Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Peru/Sandbox and Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Peru-table/Sandbox. In special, I edited the interpretation of the Law about Retroactivity part (the text in blue is what I added):

«The Peruvian copyright law of April 23, 1996, which entered in force on May 24, 1996, states in its transitional provisions that "[works] protected under the previous legislation shall benefit from the longer terms of protection provided for in this law". However, the Constitution of 1993 (which is still active in Peru) explicitily forbids the retroactive effects on the laws (except the Penal one). Therefore, the copyright for the works in the Public domain prior to the April 24, 1996 was not renewed.»

IMHO, this is enough concensus to adopt the new template, and restore all the files deleted under the wrong Copyright law. Opinions? --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Most PD-* tags give dates as to when they are OK. For Peru, for most works, it is 70pma -- so works where the author died before CURRENTYEAR-70 . Since we are now more than 20 years from the 1996 law, there are no further differences for those types of works -- works where the author died in 1946 were still protected by the 1961 law in 1996, and thus remained under protection until Jan 1 this year, when they expired, so that type of thing is a straight 70pma. Works where the author died in 1947 are still under protection. The differences, where the 1961 law still matters, are for government / corporate works (published before 1971 should be PD), cinematographic works the same (published or exhibited before 1971), and photographic works (I *think* published before 1976, but that interpretation should be double-checked by Spanish speakers -- I don't see any reference to the author's death date in that section). The URAA could still matter for works protected in 1996 but which have since expired in Peru (not many right now, just the ones which expired in January, but will grow a bit each year). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
The 1961 Copyright law is much more complex, and the list of the subjects is large. This is why I didn't included in the tag, instead, this is indicated here, table that will be included into Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Peru when them get updated. Should be that list included in the license tag?
For the Photographs, «a aquel que aparezca consignado en los ejemplares correspondientes.» can be interpreted as "First published", but can also mean "Created". PMA is hardly applicable as I interpreted that text.
And no, CURRENTYEAR-70 should not be applied, due the "deadline date" is fixed (1996). Copyright expiration under the 1961 law is actually PMA+50, where the deadline is January 1, 1996. As the new Law has no retroactive effects, two things can happen if the author died after 1945
  • If the copyright was not renewed, the file will be in the PD in 1997
  • If the copyright was renewed, the file will be in the PD in 2017
This is a very complex case and should be clarified by a Peruvian lawyer. No need to be hurry (specially in deletion, we need concensus first). --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
If possible, yes, the tag should summarize that (or at least directly link to such a table). The tag should combine the effects of the two laws as to the copyright status today. As for photographs, you mentioned 20pma in your first paragraph here, and in your table, you say "20 years depending on the type of author", and I didn't quite understand that either -- I don't see any way that the type of author, or PMA, matter given the Google translation. As for CURRENTYEAR-70, yes, that should be applied. There are no 50pma works which are PD under the old law, which are not also beyond 70pma in the new law. The 1996 law had the effect of freezing such copyright expirations for 20 years, but that period has passed, so in Peru today only the 70pma matters. It is only the types of works which had much shorter terms (i.e. those which had their terms increased by more than 20 years) which are still affected by the previous law. The 50pma still matters for URAA purposes, but most PD-Country tags only attempt to summarize the current law in that country -- any URAA stuff is usually in a separate section of the tag, if present at all. For 20 years, those two (PD in Peru today, and PD in US via URAA) were the same thing, but starting in 2017 they will start to diverge. I would have the tag summarize what is PD in Peru today, then maybe a link to the table page to explain the URAA effects. Your table has anonymous works being 30 years after publication -- but I think the 1961 law says 15 years, unless it got amended later. So, anonymous works published before 1981 would still be PD today, if that term still held in 1996. As for the table, I would translate "juridicial persons" as "legal persons" -- that is the more normal translation. Also, I did have a question on the 30pma term given assigned copyrights -- when that expires, does the work become public domain, or does the economic right simply revert to the author's heirs for the rest of the 50pma term? I.e. does the act of assigning a copyright reduce the actual term, or does it simply mean that the work is still 50pma, but that you simply needed a license from someone else in the last 20 years? If the latter, not sure that 30pma term needs to be mentioned much. Computer programs were protected as literary works under the 1961 law per a 1980s law change; you'd have to find out if that change was retroactive to fully determine the status of those; I would simply assume they were 50pma then and thus 70pma now, as normal. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Answering some of your assertions:
  • Where the subjects (kind of works) are sumarized? here, I already linked it above (dind't considered to include in the tag due the list is large, as well as {{PD-Chile}}).
  • Does URAA date matter? IMHO, Not at all. The URAA date and the date where the works where copyright expiration is PMA is the same (January 1, 1996), but, legally, the deadline is April 24, 1996; For that reason, I wrote «it was already in the public domain prior to April 24, 1996», whatever if the work entered into the PD the January 1 or April 23; this is essentially the same as the last paragraph at {{PD-1996}}, but the date is different.
  • What about photographs? To be clearer, copyright expiration is:
  • PMA+20 years for works with known author(s) (indiviodual or collective), and the author(s) is(are) Natural Person(s)
  • 20 years after the first publication for works by non-Natural Persons or the author is Anonymous or Pseudonymous; not less than 20 years for Posthumous works.
The given time supersedes the time indicated in the other subjects normally applied (PMA+20 years instead of PMA+50 for example) (I re-worded teh table to reflect it).
  • Where PMA+50 is mentioned? In the Art. 21:
«Los derechos que ampara esta ley, corresponde a los autores durante su vida, y a sus herederos o legatarios por el término de cincuenta (50) años más, a partir del primero de enero del año siguiente a aquel que courrió el fallecimiento del titular; salvo en los casos en el que por la naturaleza de la obra, señale un plazo menor.
Los derechos hereditarios del autor, se transmiten conforme a las reglas del Código Civil; pero con la limitación que establece la presente ley.»
Therefore, we can conclude two things:
  • Copyright holder is the Author and his/her heirs (biological or by bequeath); if the author dies, the heirs are the copyright holders until the author's PMA+50 (or PMA+50+30 for Given Rights), not the death of the last heir (I menton it to avoid confutions).
  • As the article explicitely mention "lesser time" for "some kind of works", the copyright expiratio for Simple Photographs is PMA+20 (instead of the usual PMA+50) (PMA+20+30 for Given Rights).
Finally, PMA+70 is part of the 1996 Law, so, it cannot be applied for works covered under the 1961 law if the copyright expired before April 24, 1996; as works covered under the 1996 law, the PMA+70 will not be applicable until 2066 (so, just in 2064 we could consider to re-word the template and the explanation page to reflect the copyright expiration under the 1996 Copyright law).
  • Your table has anonymous works being 30 years after publication: My mistake. I corrected it to 15 years.
  • As for the table, I would translate "juridicial persons" as "legal persons": Yes, sounds better. I reworded the table for this, too.
  • Given assigned copyrights (given to non-biological heris) (Art. 23): It adds 30 years to the time usually applicable (PMA+20+30 for simple photographs, PMA+50+30 for the rest), only if the author is a Natural Person.
  • Computer programs were protected as literary works under the 1961: What 1980 law mentions it? Anyway, under the 1961 Law, copyright expiration for literary works was already mentioned:
  • PMA+50 (or PMA+50+30 for given rights between Natural Persons)
  • 15 years after the first publication if the author is Anonymous or Pseudonymous (Legal Person is not considered as Pseudonymous)
  • 25 years for works from the State, Municipalities, Official Corporations and Legal Persons (like enterprises)
I expect your doubts has been resolved. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, some. Well, next round of questions then :-)
  • Does URAA date matter? Agreed, it doesn't matter much. The PD status was identical in Peru and the U.S. for the last 20 years. However in 2017, the first batch of works that were still protected in 1996 and thus got extended have now expired in Peru, so there is some small set of works (and it will now grow every year) which are PD in Peru but not in the U.S. due to the URAA. For example, a 1930 work by a Peruvian author who died in 1946. That was still protected on April 24, 1996, therefore got the longer 70pma term and just expired in Peru this year, but is still under U.S. copyright due to the URAA. May be a minor detail now but it will grow.
  • What about photographs? Hrm. I still don't see where the 20pma comes from. Article 27, in the Google translation, just mentions the 20 years from publication as the term, with nothing about natural persons or anonymous works. It does mention that photographs which are part of a literary or scientific work by the same author get the full 50pma term. But otherwise it would seem that photos get 20 years regardless of authorship. Am I missing an article somewhere? A short term like 20 years from publication for all photographs was fairly typical back then. El derecho exclusivo sobre las fotografías que tendrán una duración de veinte años, a partir del primero de enero del año siguiente a aquel que aparezca consignado en los ejemplares correspondientes. Tratándose de fotografías que forman parte integrante de una obra literaria o científica y cuyo derecho de autor corresponde al titular de dicha obra, ese derecho subsistirá por todo el tiempo que la obra goce del amparo legal. I have not read the entire law to see if there are articles outside 21-31 which affect the terms.
  • Article 21 Yep, agreed. The 1986 amendment I linked to much earlier added parents I think to the list of heirs, but I think was otherwise unchanged.
  • Given assigned copyrights (Art. 22) Oh, added? I didn't get that at all reading the translation. The translation indicates the term is the life of the author plus 30 years. I thought the reference to article 21 was just about extending to January 1 of the next year, and not having to repeat that clause. En los casos da cesión, corresponden los derechos al cesionario o sus causahabientes por el término de la vida del autor y treinta años más, computados en la forma señalada en el artículo precedente. Google translate says In the cases of assignment, the rights to the transferee or his successors in title for the term of the author's life correspond and thirty more years, computed in the form indicated in the preceding article. So, I read that as being 30pma, as being the life of the author plus 30 more years. The "computed in the form indicated in the preceding article" I took to mean the January 1 calculations. But, Google Translate may have completely butchered it too.
  • Computer programs I found a reference to an Executive Resolution No. 001-1987-BNP of October 10, 1987, which supposedly protected computer programs as literary works. So yes, those would be 50pma for natural persons, extended to 70pma in 1996, etc.
Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Answering your new questions:
  • Does URAA date matter? Again, copyright expiration in Peru under the 1961 Copyright law is not just PMA, but also Date of publication and possibly Date of creation (photographs, see bellow). Also, the author(s) (Natural Person) should been died before January 1, 1946, then, it passes into the PD the January 1, 1996 (before April 24, 1996); if the author died between January 1 and December 31 of 1946, the 50 years starts since January 1, 1947 (after April 24, 1996).
For the works where the copyright expiration is Time after Date of publication/creation, the work must be first published before April 24, 1971 for Legal Persons (non-Natural persons) and 1966 for Anonymous or Pseudonymous (Natural persons).
  • What about photographs? Effectively it does not mention PMA, just Time (20 years), because the given time supersedes the time usually applied depending the subject (I already mentioned that above, so, please read my comments carefuly).
  • Article 21. If a posterior pre-1996 Law added another subject to the heirs (Parents), it is valid, so, it will be added to the notes at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Peru/Sandbox.
  • Given assigned copyrights (Art. 22) Need to rectificate. Copyright expiration is PMA+30 not PMA+50+30 as I originally indicated wrongly above. This is already indicated in the table.
  • Computer programs. Like any literary work, copyright expiration is:
  • PMA+50 for Natural Persons.
  • PMA+30 for Given rights (between Natural Persons).
  • 25 years after the first publication for works from the State, Municipalities, Official corporations and Legal Persons.
  • 30 years after the first publication for Anonymous or Pseudonymous works
--Amitie 10g (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Does URAA date matter? Yes, for all the terms shorter than 50pma, the 1961 law terms still govern, like you say. I was just making a technical point that there is now a small sliver of works where the 1996 law governs.
  • Photographs Article 27 says: El derecho exclusivo sobre las fotografías que tendrán una duración de veinte años, a partir del primero de enero del año siguiente a aquel que aparezca consignado en los ejemplares correspondientes. Google Translate says The exclusive right over the photographs that will have a duration of twenty years, from the first of January of the year following the one that appears recorded in the corresponding copies. That seems (to me) to say it is 20 years from the date recorded on the copies (probably publication, but maybe creation), not a general term of 20 years starting from various relative times. Unless "corresponding copies" is actually referring to other articles of the law. There is the second paragraph of Tratándose de fotografías que forman parte integrante de una obra literaria o científica y cuyo derecho de autor corresponde al titular de dicha obra, ese derecho subsistirá por todo el tiempo que la obra goce del amparo legal. which means that for a few certain photographs -- those which are integral parts of literary or scientific works, which could easily be uploaded -- the term is the full 50pma, or 25 years from publication if a legal person, etc. -- same as the literary work. That probably needs to be mentioned either way.
  • Given assigned copyrights (Art. 22) Okay, then back to my original question -- after 30pma, do the rights revert to the original heirs for the remainder of the original 50pma term (if that existed), or do they become public domain? I could see arguments for both. The assignee clearly loses their rights at 30pma but it doesn't mention that the original rights also end, and it doesn't explicitly mention
  • Computer programs Yes, of course -- I was just mentioning that computer programs were protected as much under the older law as they are on the new one, that's all. They have the same terms as literary works, which are various depending on the type of author, yes.
Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Photographs: Please, don't trust in a machine-translated text; I'm a Spanish-native talking user with high level of English, and my attemp to translate my interpretation of the law should be more trustable and accurate. About the interpetation, I already mentioned the «El derecho exclusivo sobre las fotografías que tendrán una duración de veinte años, a partir del primero de enero del año siguiente a aquel que aparezca consignado en los ejemplares correspondientes» needs to be clarified; MarshalN20 also given his interpretation of the phrase «a aquel que aparezca consignado en los ejemplares correspondientes» (that I considered for my interpretation of that article), but still a good interpretation form a Peruvian lawyer is needed.
  • Given assigned copyrights (Art. 22): As the phrase indicates, the copyright holder is not longer the original author (and heirs, spouse and parents), but the PMA+30 applies for the life of the original author.
--Amitie 10g (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Photographs Your first interpretation wasn't sure if the photographic term was 20 years from creation or 20 years from publication; I would agree it would be one or the other. You even said PMA is hardly applicable as I interpreted that text, which I would agree with. MarshalN20 then said it was 20 years from publication; fine. Then later in the above discussion, you said it was 20pma in some cases -- that is what I am confused about. That wasn't part of your initial interpretation. And your table is not specific about what the 20 years is counted from -- I would just indicate the uncertainty about creation vs. publication, or go with MarshalN20's interpretation of publication (since that would be the more conservative one anyways).
  • Given assigned copyrights (Art. 22) OK. Some laws have included a reversion of rights to the original author (or heirs) after a period; I wasn't sure if this clause meant that an assigned copyright implied that situation (the assignee owns the rights for 30pma based on the life of the original author then rights revert to the heirs' terms for the following 20 years), or if the length of the copyright is permanently truncated to 30pma once assigned and it passes into the public domain at that point. The law does not explicitly say the rights revert though, so it's also reasonable to assume the term completely expires. Article 90 though has this: El autor o sus causahabientes pueden enajenar o ceder total o parcialmente su obra. Esta enajenación es válida sólo durante el término establecido por el artículo 22 de esta ley y confiere a su adquiriente el derecho a su aprovechamiento económico sin poder alterar su título, forma y contenido, salvo pacto en contrario. Again, I'm not sure if that means the transfer is terminated after 30pma, implying the rights revert to the author's heirs, or if copyright ends at that point -- does that still imply that copyright ends at 30pma?
Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, as I mentioned above, a Peruvian lawyer is the best person to interpret the sentence about Photos. And as I mentioned, copyright expiration (as my interpretation) depends on the subject: PMA for Natural persons, Date of publication for non-Natural persons; but even, that sentence can also mean Date of creation, but let a Lawyer interpret that. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, if I can be of some help, I'd like to clarify again that my interpretation is that the photograph's copyright cycle beings only after its publication. Therefore, it's always important to prove when and where that photograph was published. Here's a link to a chronology of copyright laws in Peru ([11]).--MarshalN20 (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, this interpretation is the closest as I interpreted. Then, is possible to contact to a Lawyer to get a clear interpretation of the whole Law (or at least the relevant articles)? --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Amitie 10g: The present wording of "Template:PD-Peru/Sandbox" says "... prior to April 24, 1996, when the new Copyright Law of Peru was published". Should it not say "... before May 24, 1996 when the new Copyright Law of Peru entered into force"? (Cf. in "disposiciones finales": "La presente Ley entrará en vigencia a los treinta días de su publicación".) -- Asclepias (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying it, I corrected the date. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

A further concern

@Clindberg: @MarshalN20: @Amitie 10g: (pinging the people who have been particularly involved in the drafting here.

I've not been involved with this, but I'm quite pleased with how it's working out... I don't speak Spanish, and have not dug into the Peruvian law. There is a further concern here, at least for Commons, that I think should be addressed in any 'guidance' that is given by the end result here.... it's something that is true more generally (it applies to other countries), and relates to potential US copyright. It's not the URAA, but the third article of the en:Buenos Aires Convention. It might also affect any undeletions.

"The acknowledgement of a copyright obtained in one State, in conformity with its laws, shall produce its effects of full right, in all the other States, without the necessity of complying with any other formality, provided always there shall appear in the work a statement that indicates the reservation of the property right."

A Spanish copy of the text exists at
This treaty (and other similar agreements) is, itself, one source of the problems that resulted in the URAA.... some foreign works obtained an initial 28 year copyright term in the US due to a treaty or bilateral agreement, and when that term expired the works entered the public domain in the US due to non-renewal while still copyrighted in the source nation.... this was not in compliance with the Berne Convention.
The aspect that concerns us here, however, is that any work published in Peru, in compliance with local law and with a statement of reservation of rights, obtained copyright protection in the US.... it was, by treaty, considered to have complied with the US formalities.
For works published prior to 1 January 1964, this US term expired in 1992. These works were then potentially eligible for a later restored US copyright under the URAA... these are not the works that I am discussing.
The en:Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 removed the renewal requirement... works that were published in Peru, after 1 January 1964, in compliance with article 3 of the Buenos Aires Convention (in compliance with Peruvian Law, and with a statement of reservation of rights) never entered the public domain in the United States, are still copyrighted, and are not allowable on Commons per the BAC.
Furthermore, Peru and the United States became mutual parties to the Geneva en:Universal Copyright Convention on 16 October 1963. The convention states...

"Article II.1 - Published works of nationals of any Contracting State and works first published in that State shall enjoy in each other Contracting State the same protection as that other State accords to works of its nationals first published in its own territory."

"Article III.1 - Any Contracting State which, under its domestic law, requires as a condition of copyright, compliance with formalities such as deposit, registration, notice, notarial certificates, payment of fees or manufacture or publication in that Contracting State, shall regard these requirements as satisfied with respect to all works protected in accordance with this Convention and first published outside its territory and the author of which is not one of its nationals, if from the time of the first publication all the copies of the work published with the authority of the author or other copyright proprietor bear the symbol © ac-companied by the name of the copyright proprietor and the year of first publication placed in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of claim of copyright."

A Spanish text is at
In interaction with the 1992 law, this also means that no work published in Peru after 1 January 1964, with a copyright symbol, date, and the name of the proprietor has ever entered the public domain in the United States, unless fairly unlikely exemptions apply.
I believe that any new statement drafted about the copyright status of works from Peru should reflect these US copyright concerns. - Reventtalk 07:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
On a more general note, (International Copyright Relations of the United States) gives the relevant dates when various nations accessed to such treaties or bilateral arrangements. - Reventtalk 07:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: This is a very interesting subject. I've looked over the images that I have uploaded to Commons (including the Inca Kola advertisement), and none of them have a proper copyright symbol, date, and name of proprietor. I think it's important to take into consideration that copyright culture in Peru has historically been very weak in general, and it again would be a mistake to consider that Peruvian publications have the same copyright rigor as other countries in Latin America (and even much less seek a comparison with the United States). My understanding of the International Conventions that are being presented, and with regards to the magazine publication in which some of these images are found, is that they would apply to the magazine as a unit (meaning, no free scans of the entire magazine could be uploaded to Commons or elsewhere). However, the images (especially the advertisements) tended to be displayed in multiple publications or as posters in the streets; unless the subject matter was academic in nature (or "high-culture"), not much care was given to properly copyright material that was meant to advertise a product or some other "low-culture" subject.--MarshalN20 (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Even to this day, in Peru, you can find several sports teams and sports-related images from the 1970s & 1980s (and before) in different formats (posters, postcards, photographs, key chains, etc). Newspapers also use these images without even citing where they may have acquired them (probably because they also don't know who made them or where they were first published). These older images have basically never been subject to proper copyright documentation. It's an unfortunate situation for the authors, but they're certainly not receiving any royalties from their work (they're anonymous) and also a lot of the older publications have even ceased to exist.--MarshalN20 (talk) 06:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
For the most part, not sure this is really different than any other country. If a work was published after 1964 with copyright notice, it retained its U.S. copyright and the URAA is not relevant. For most types of uploaded works though, this was rare. I suppose earlier works the phrase "all rights reserved" would have also sufficed to preserve copyright, due to the Buenos Aires Convention, but all works published before 1964 would have also needed U.S. renewal to keep its U.S. copyright, just like anyone else. So yes, the above is all true, but it's also true of works from just about any country, and (outside of books) such notices were relatively rare for the types of works typically uploaded. Always something to be aware of, but nothing special in respect to Peru, I don't think. In most cases, it would be the URAA which determines the current-day U.S. copyright status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
@Clindberg: As I mentioned at the beginning, the same general principle (that a non-US work can have a subsisting copyright due to a bilateral agreement or treaty) does apply to essentially every country (a start was made in documenting this at COM:SC, but that page is obscure). It seemed particularly worth mentioning it here, with explanation, because Peru has such a short term for some works. An analysis based on just the points discussed previously in this conversation (Peruvian law, and the URAA) would result in "BAC or UCC-compliant" photographic works for a period of over a decade (1964-1976) being assumed PD in the US when they are not. The 'bar' for BAC-compliance is particularly low, and I have over time seen a fair number of debates about if the URAA restored the copyright in a work that had a subsisting copyright... it's something that is exacerbated by eswiki not allowing local uploads. - Reventtalk 07:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it acceptable?

I wonder whether this logo is acceptable or not under current Commons policy ({{PD-simple}} or {{Textlogo}}, eventually without the gray shading).--Carnby (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this {{Textlogo}} - just a some typeface. Ruslik (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Even in France? --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


Hi. Knowing this information about the White House Photographs collection at

"Still photographs by White House and National Park Service staff photographers documenting the President's activities at the White House, his official trips, and other events; informal photographs of the President and his family at the White House, at other residences, on vacations, and at other non-official times; photographs of Administration officials and members of the Congress; photographs of White House staff and visitors to the White House; photographs of White House rooms and grounds"

Is it OK to upload this picture (that belongs to the White House Photographs collection and to the series Abbie Rowe (National Park Service)) under the {{PD-USGov-NPS}} notice? Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that should be ok. Rowe's biography relates that the NPS assigned him to provide photographic coverage of the President's activities. And according to the photo page at the JFK Library's website, the image is in the public domain. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. The result is here. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
here is the series [12] only 3592 to upload. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

United Nations documents, published in 1966 and 1977

There are two United Nations documentsː

Are these documents copyrighted or they are in public domain (and can be uploaded to Commons)? --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@صلاح الأوكراني: The status of UN documents has been the subject of much discussion in the past. The current consensus is reflected in {{PD-UN-doc}}.
Basically, all works first published by the United Nations are 'eligible' for copyright in the US, under 17USC104(b)(5), but the United Nations has a longstanding official policy leaving certain classes of works in the public domain. That includes any document published under a UN document symbol, which applies to both of these. They should be fine, IMO. - Reventtalk 07:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

en:File:Logo,scientific research publishing.png

Can the logo of the open-access publisher en:Scientific Research Publishing en:File:Logo,scientific research publishing.png be transferred to Commons? The site itself ([13]) seems to be copyrighted, but could it be uploaded as a {{PD-textlogo}}? A very similar logo can also be found in the papers of the publisher (e.g. doi:10.4236/jtr.2017.51010 (PDF)). Those papers are mostly published under CC-BY-4.0, but I am not certain if that applies to the publisher's logo as well. Note that there is already the file File:Srp logo.jpg on Commons. The copyright status of that file feels a little sketchy to me though. --CorrectHorseBatteryStaple (talk) 03:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It may be but I am not sure about the Chinese copyright law. Ruslik (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I believe both images are wonderful examples of {{PD-textlogo}}, they are in the Public Domain within the US, and thus eligible for Wikimedia Commons. The US Copyright Office did not even deem the Best Western Logo copyrightable ( ), so this definetly isn't. However, both are very likely trademarked, so also add {{Trademarked}}.--Lommes (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
That makes it fine for enWP, where only US law matters. The American ToO is conspicuously high in comparison to other countries‘—there are few where it’s been clearly established, but see en:File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg, for example—anyway, that’s usually the easier hurdle. Here, as Ruslik implied above, we have the additional requirement that this logo be free under Chinese law. What do we know about ToO there?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Marcello Mastroianni at Tsarskoe Selo

Is it all right with the pic (aspect ratio aside)? The purported copyright owner said it was originally shot in 1987, whereas the date in {{Information}} is 18 September 2016 (date of capture? same date in Exif).--Carnby (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Exif date is no big deal, since it's apparently a photo of a photo, and that would be the date of the latter photo. However I wonder if User:Codas's claim of own work only applies to that 2016 photo, or if he was also present on the 1987 movie set to take the original. --ghouston (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I just take photo from a photo 18 September 2016 in Tsarskoe Selo. I'm not the original photographer... --Codas (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Then {{Own}} and {{cc-by-sa-4.0}} might be appropriate for the photo taken on 18 September 2016 but not for the original; I don't know if a screenshot from a 1987 movie is all right for Commons.--Carnby (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Published before the 1923

If something was published before the 1923 outside the United States, is it in PD in the United States? Thanks--Pierpao.lo (listening) 07:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. In theory, the Ninth Circuit in w:Twin Books Corp. v. Walt Disney Co. ruled that publication in the US starts the clock, but we've ignored that, and I know that at least at certain points in time, Wikimedia lawyers have been itching for a case to challenge that ruling. So virtually everyone including US treats that 1923 date as iron-clad. (Of course, on 2019-01-01 1923 works will go in the PD and the line will start moving again.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that though this may be mostly true, Commons' policy that a publication is free in the host country (USA) and in the country of original publication applies and helps to protect the interests of our reusers as well as the copyright holder. -- (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Fæ is right, anything that was first published outside the US needs to be free in the country of origin first of all. De728631 (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
the problem is we have very few references for place of origin for artworks. and less case law. so why all the empty philosophy from the amateurs? it is worse that enforcing copyright for the anonymous. why don't you spend time on the higher risk items? is it because it is less empty? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
For most artworks, we have no idea when or if they were 'published' anyhow. The Berne Convention rule (that the country of origin of an unpublished work is the country of which the author was a national) is a reasonable approximation in such cases. US law basically says the same thing, at least in regards to the URAA (and any unpublished work gets at least a 70 year term in the US anyhow, regardless of origin). - Reventtalk 23:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
actually we do know, (or have a process for finding out) but the catalog raisonné are in print in the art archives and not online. [14] except for the famous [15]. it is rare for the Hermann Herzog heirs to make allegations of "unpublished" [16] it is only a perfectionist who would insist on proof for every US item. low risk. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The report of the Somali Language Committee

I have found the report of the Somali Language Committee, which was published in 1961. Can this book be uploaded to Commons? --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The United States Copyright Office doesn't know what copyright relations the US has with Somalia. That's a bad sign. Basically unless you can find some clear statement of Somalia copyright law (which it apparently had, at least back in the 1980s), and under that law, it's PD, I'd say no.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
yeah, it is so bad, commons does not think there is copyright for somalia, see also Template:PD-Somalia - or upload it to english wikisource [17] as "fair use" - we will take it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Commons does not think; it has no brain, no animus. That template is wrong; it says "Per U.S. Circ. 38a.,", but per U.S. Circ. 38a., it is unknown whether Somalia has copyright relations with the US. And no, the English Wikisource does not take "fair use" works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
the collective mind produced a template. i leave the animus to the commons admins. yes, english wikisource does have fair use, especially when items are deleted on commons. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
To quote s:Wikisource:Copyright_policy: "Fair use is explicitly prohibited on Wikisource." (bold in the original.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
There is no fair use on Wikisource. Think about it -- reproducing entire works would rarely qualify as fair use, especially with no particular context. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the circular has changed -- it now says "Unclear" with a couple of former colony nations, instead of "None" the way it used to. Several of the nations listed there have since joined Berne (or will later this year, in the case of Tuvalu). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
At the time, Somalia was actually under the UK Copyright Act 1956 I believe. By that, the report would be PD (equivalent of Crown Copyright 50 years after publication). Somalia passed a new copyright law in 1977 -- see here for details (including scans and OCRs of the law, which is in Somali). There was no protection for laws, judicial decisions, and that sort of thing -- though likely not including reports like this -- and the general term was 30pma. It also sounds like registration was mandatory for copyright, which eliminated most works (especially when there was no functioning government). There were also some conflicting laws passed by the dictatorial government (from the above page, there was apparently a 1974 law which all books would be published, and the copyright owned, by the government -- the author simply retained the right to be credited). The report here may have qualified as a joint work, so if any of the authors lived until 1987 it could still theoretically be under copyright -- though apparently it would have needed to be registered as well, which seems unlikely. Somalia never joined any international copyright convention from all evidence, and likely did not enforce the copyright law they had very much, and almost certainly does not today. Dunno. I'd say it's probably OK to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
That's reasonable, but again, the US Copyright Office lists US copyright relations with Somalia as unknown. I don't know why, but it does make me want to work more cautiously here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
We technically had relations when they were the British and Italian Somaliland, I guess, but the combined Somalia nation never specified if they were keeping those treaties (by all appearances, they did not). They certainly didn't conform to the Berne Convention when they passed the 1977 law, so no way they kept that. That law may have qualified for the UCC (it did mention copyright notices, which were required for registration, which itself was required to keep copyright) but they never transmitted accedence to that treaty. There are no copyright notices that I see on this report, so U.S. copyright would have been lost anyways even if they did have relations. Furthermore, it's unlikely a government report from 1961 will be copyrighted in Somalia when/if they do join Berne, meaning it's unlikely that URAA rights would ever apply. It has expired in Somalia under the terms of the law they inherited at the time (UK Copyright Act 19561911), and the 1977 law if anything had shorter terms (plus requiring registration), and as a published work it does not have any unpublished U.S. protection. I can understand caution, but not to this extent. I think it's both {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-Somalia}} (though the latter tag should probably be updated with the reference to the 1977 law). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll accept that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg, so, can I upload this file, using {{PD-US-no notice}} and {{PD-Somalia}}? --صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I think so, yes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)