Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/07

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

An image from a 1907 book

Recently I found an interesting image in the Google books and I would like to use it for a Wikipedia article. But I do not have clear idea about its copyright state and also don't know what kind of license should be used for the upload process. The book (Twentieth century impressions of Ceylon : its history, people, commerce, industries, and resources / edited by Arnold Wright) has been published in 1907 in London by Lloyd's Greater Britain Pub. Co. The author of the book Arnold Wright has died in 1941. The image I want to upload is this (The image of house called PIYA NIWASA. Page 854). --L Manju (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author of a book is irrelevant when it comes to illustrations unless the writer took the photographs himself or created any sketches or paintings himself. In this book some credits are given on page 863, but the individual photographs are not credited to their respective authors. Since this was first published in London in 1907, the copyright protection for these anonymous photographs has expired. This means means that can upload a file with the photo of the Piya Niwasa house. Please use the following string of code as a license:
De728631 (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind attention.--L Manju (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply] Korean licenses

I found a file with a link to as the license. I think this is a good license, but I can't find a template for it on Commons or a good English translation. Google Translate's a little weak with Korean legalese.

Does anyone have experience with this license, or understand Korean and English well enough to research a solution? Guanaco (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for help at w:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea#Korean freeuse license. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Korea Copyright Commission, this free-use license is supposed to emulate the Creative Commons license. There is also an article about it on the Korean Wikipedia. There are four options available: "허용", which allows modifications and use for any purpose (including commercial use), "영리금지" which allows modifications, but not commercial use, "개작금지" which allows commercial use, but not modifications, and "영리금지·개작금지", which does not allow modifications or commercial use. Korean isn't my native language, so I'll need a spot-check by a native Korean speaker. xplicit 04:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{KOAL}} is what you're looking for. — regards, Revi 20:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Guanaco (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-copyright courtesy templates

Do we have templates covering author requests, which explicitly aren't enforceable by copyright? For example:

  • "I release this under the terms of CC0, but please attribute me if it's not too much trouble."
  • "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder David Liuzzo is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted. You are kindly requested to contact the copyright holder before using the material for purposes outside wikipedia. For requests and questions feel free to contact the original author."

I'm trying to clear the Category:Copyrighted free use provided that backlog at the moment and these would be helpful. Guanaco (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{Attribution}}? Ruslik (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, at a quick glance I found User:Jkadavoor/cc0. You might want to check Category:User custom license tags for other instances, but most of these templates have non-obvious names. By the way, your second example does not waive the author's copyright so proper attribution would still be enforceable. De728631 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{PD-link}} is the closest thing that we have to the first one. As for the second one, I think others missed the point: it's the request for notification that's the relevant non-condition. LX (talk, contribs) 05:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking outside-the-box' a little bit. Such a customised template may be of use to many contributors. It could have (say) a green circle with the letters FB in the centre. The text could read : Although not obligatory, the copyright holder would appreciate some feedback from users as to where this image has been used, so that s/he may focus on uploading more images of similar subjects. I was surprised to find some of my boring, in-artistic photos have been popular as stock photographs, so I no longer feel embarrassed at uploading those that only I thought were interesting. One even got used on the cover of a music CD even though badly over exposed. So, when in doubt press the shutter and upload. As I final note: Our Wikipedia article Stock photography doesn’t mention Wikimedia Commons as a source of stock images – just lists the commercial agencies. P.g.champion (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cityscapes and Freedom of Panorama

I was about to nominate this user's files for deletion, as many of them are photos of modern Indonesian skyscrapers while there is insufficient freedom of panorama in Indonesia. My question is whether the cityscapes in that upload list should also be nominated for such deletion or if I should stick to the individual building images. Thanks. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can be kept as long as any particular building is De minimus. --ghouston (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Videos from Studio

If {{PD-ineligible}} suits Category:Images from security cameras, What about cameras installed in a studio and remotely controlled? These videos contains a lot of famous announcers, and was filmed in this way.Can we take advantage of them?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think this is too much of an extension to make, to argue that any camera on a tripod controlled by a broadcast room has the same threshold of originality as a CCTV camera. You mention "remotely controlled" and that phrase itself within the context of a TV/online program including the one you linked, suggests there is a person who is making active creative decisions with respect to the design of the work, which is far more than can be said about CCTV security footage. seb26 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Seb26: Thank you for your reply. Does this apply to control by only switch and zoom?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Security footage is not creative; the cameras are pointed for security reasons, and what's captured before this is coincidental. I would believe CCTV security footage that was deliberately used to film a movie would be copyrightable. --Prosfilaes (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IRV Sample Ballot

Is the sample ballot of San Francisco elections simple enough to be exempted from copyright law? 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That server seems to be down. Ruslik (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can open it using Tor browser. By the way, the image is at page 7 of this pamphlet. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any sample ballot on page 7. Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Page 7 of the pamphlet = page 10 of PDF viewer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Is this Washington Capitals' logo really simple enough to be {{PD-textlogo}}? There's a non-free version of it uploaded to English Wikipedia as en:File:Washington Capitals.svg, but that would no longer be needed if the Commons' version is acceptable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, yes. Ruslik (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i would keep the local version, since commons can not be relied upon to keep a file over time. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of w:en:WP:FREER is that a non-free usage justification on English Wikipedia is not allowed if there is a more freely-licensed version on Commons. If an image is uploaded to Commons with a valid license then any non-free versions should be deleted from Wikipedia. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Verbcatcher. Keeping a non-free file uploaded locally to Wikipedia would not be allowed per en:WP:NFCC#1 if a free version of the same file is available from Commons and such non-free files are typically be tagged for speeedy deletion per en:WP:F8. The question is whether this is PD-textlogo for the US since that is the country of origin. I'm not sure of the hockey-stick/puck imagery for the "t" is a font-tweak or actually a creative element. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" Editors can also choose to have a local version stored on Wikipedia." [1] see also w:Template:Keep local Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This does not apply to fair use files. Ruslik (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:David L Jones in his garage lab.jpg

The file mentioned in the title has been uploaded to Flickr by the person in the photograph, Dave Jones, himself. The problem is, that on Flickr it has been released as public domain. Also I'm not sure, whether the uploader is Mr. David Jones himself, as he claims to be the author of the file in question; I'm questioning this because the uploader's (User:Binarysequence) previous history has a couple of copyvios. Someone could investigate and change the file info accordingly. /Matkijalintu (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the Flickr page? One likely issue with it is that the subject of the photo doesn't hold the copyright. The photographer does, and we'd need proof that they agree to license it. Guanaco (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot the most important thing from my post. My apologies! Here you go: /Matkijalintu (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
do you have a reason to doubt a CC-0 license? it appears to be a crop of the one here [2] but with a higher resolution. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My cause for doubt here is a common situation: the subject of the photograph releases copyright, but the photographer never gives permission. Guanaco (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Flickr account in that question is indeed owned by Mr. Jones himself, as he even links to the account for example in this video's description. And for Guanaco's point, I highly doubt that would be the case. Mr. Jones has been making videos for almost a decade. In that period, especially when you're a producer of a large content channel, you tend to learn a lot about copyright laws and what you can and can't do. Copyright laws regarding videos aren't that different from those applied on images. The photo could have easily been taken using a timer function or a remote. And after all, the photo is even included in his free to use gallery, which contains photos released under CC0 or PD. /Matkijalintu (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just ask him and send the info to OTRS. Guanaco (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
let's wait until we have evidence the photographer did not give permission. we have flickr evidence it is CC-0 Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Earlier today, a user uploaded the logo for the Valley International Airport in Harlingen, TX. File:ValleyInternationalAirport Harlingen.jpg was added by User:VIA-Harlingen, with a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. But since it's a long-standing logo for an airport, I'm feeling the upload might not clear copyright hurdles. Should something be done about this, or is the file acceptable as-is? Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This logo seems to me to be simple enough to use {{PD-textlogo}} especially considering this is a U.S.-based brand. I adjusted it as such, removing the CC claim. To me another more concerning part was the user account name itself, representing an organisation ("VIA-Harlingen", Valley International Airport). Also to be fixed: the 4 uploads of US Army content as CC-BY-SA-4.0 at Special:Log/VIA-Harlingen, and to be checked: edits by that account to the airport article on seb26 (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as sure -- the graphic in the top left may qualify for copyright. Secondly, even if something is PD-ineligible for the U.S., we should be leaving a valid CC license on it -- since the threshold of originality is different in each country, it may well be above the threshold elsewhere, and the CC license is relevant for re-users in those countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point. I went back and included the CC license. Carl Lindberg, do you have thoughts on the other four images uploaded by that account? seb26 (talk) 14:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are all credited to the U.S. Army -- and they certainly look like that type of photo. If that is the case, they should be {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} and the CC license would be invalid. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial files (User:Arimasen)

Looks like this guy has uploaded a bunch of NC. Whether they are eligible for copyright in the first place is questionable with some files. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:0:9E2A 12:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a problem as long as another truly free licence was granted at the same time. E.g. in the beginning, File:Hukum-coulomb.png had a GFDL license and a CC-by-sa-NC licence. The GFDL was later converted into a dual GFDL+CC licence, so the earlier NC part doesn't matter anyway now, but as far as I can tell there has always been the GFDL part as the "free" option in Arimasen's uploads. So unless you found a file that has a non-commercial licence as the sole licence, the NC bit doesn't matter. De728631 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Harvard .jpg

I'm pretty sure this is not the "own work" of the uploader because it is clearly being used By en:Harvard University at Does it need to be treated as COM:FU or can its licenseing just be tweaked per File:Harvard University logo.PNG? The latter case seems possible since the two files are basically the same. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done – copied the file description from File:Harvard University logo.PNG. LX (talk, contribs) 07:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking this LX. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Swedish FoP images

[started as new section as suggested above.]

I think it is important not to hurry with deletions. It is still unclear whether the ruling applies more broadly, and whether one could have success with an appeal. No one has any interest in lawsuits against individual contributors (the organisation that sued WMF-SE has promised not to sue, probably to avoid badwill), so the risk for individuals is very low. And most importantly, I feel these images, if deleted, should be deleted in a coordinated process, so that they are easy to find would the law or interpretation of it change, and so that we can get to know how big an influence the rulings has had for Commons and Wikipedia.

--LPfi (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if we already accept images from I have tried searching and couldn't find any discussions or templates. The copyright notice speaks to permitted reproduction with attribution, with no mention on the rights to derivative works, so my gut says "maybe not", but this seemed like it might be a popular source so if it was discussed before could somebody link me?

I am currently looking at File:G20 2017.jpg which was sourced from [3]. seb26 (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Files uploaded by this account are not own works, so I nominated them for deletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Oliver Goldsmith logo meet the threshold of originality? It seems to consist only of very simple geometric shapes and text. I just can't determine if it does or doesn't, especially after seeing this DR which leads me to think probably doesn't, but still borderline... (especially as it rather closely resembles the interlinked Chanel C's)

For example of logo see:

Thanks so much. Mabalu (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In UK it certainly can be copyrighted. Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the UploadWizard default to CC-BY 3.0 (without the SA)?

It seems that the UploadWizard latterly offers CC-BY 3.0 as the default license. Why that? Isn't the CC-BY-SA the major license of our project? I personally don't consider it a good idea to motivate people to upload under a no-Copyleft-license. // Martin K. (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It defaults to Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 unless you've chosen something else in your preferences. LX (talk, contribs) 17:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LX: Thanks - that solved the problem. // Martin K. (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama in Sweden (or lack thereof)

I have updated COM:FOP#Sweden with information about the latest ruling against Wikimedia Sweden. The ruling can still be appealed (but is based on a statement on interpretation of the copyright act made by the Supreme Court). While deletion might be premature at this point (possibly with the exception of requests from concerned uploaders), I do feel it is disingenuous to offer up files with {{FoP-Sweden}} in its current state given what we know now. Even if one somehow takes the position that Commons' hosting of these files is not only legal but also consistent with our licensing policy, the fact remains that if anyone does what Wikimedia Sweden did (provide links to files hosted on Commons), they risk prosecution and would be held liable unless the current ruling is overturned. We owe it to reusers to point this out. Therefore, I propose a rewrite of {{FoP-Sweden}}.

Current version



This reproduction of an architectural work or work of art, is covered under the Swedish law of copyright for literary and artistic works (Law 1960:729, paragraph 24), which states that "Work of art may be depicted if it is permanently placed on or at a public place outdoors. Buildings may be freely depicted."
See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Sweden for more information.

Language links | +/−

Proposed version (based in part on {{FoP-unknown}})


It is not clear whether freedom of panorama applies to this image.

This is a depiction of a building or work of art in Sweden. The depicted work is believed to be protected by copyright. According to Article 24 of the Swedish copyright act, "Works of art may be depicted if they are permanently placed on or at a public place outdoors. Buildings may be freely depicted." It has been widely accepted that this provision made distribution of depictions such as this one legal.

On 4 April 2016, however, the Supreme Court of Sweden issued a statement that Article 24 does not extend to publication in online repositories, and on 6 July 2017, a lower court ruled that linking to depictions of copyrighted artworks hosted on Commons constitutes copyright infringement. See Commons:Freedom of panorama#Sweden for more information.

The implications of these decisions on Commons' ability to continue to distribute this and other depictions like it are currently under analysis.

Reusing or linking to this file may have legal consequences. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe the copyright belonging to someone else. See our general disclaimer for more information.

Language links | +/−

While I'm not happy about the situation, I would be happy to get input on the proposal. If you want to suggest changes, please do so below rather than editing the initial proposal, as that tends to make proposals like this rather confusing. Also, I understand that this is a sore topic. To keep the discussion focused, please start another section if you want to discuss how stupid the rulings are, whether or not we should delete affected files, whether or not we should stage protests or anything else not related to the wording of the template under the current circumstances. Thanks, LX (talk, contribs) 17:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest two templates: one for art and one for architecture. We may come to different conclusions with respect to these two categories. Edaen (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I agree in principle, but I think it would be better implemented using a template parameter controlling categorisation and the "building or work" part of the text. Easier to maintain, less duplication of content, and more straightforward to migrate.
Unless there are any significant objections or developments, I plan to do this later this week. LX (talk, contribs) 18:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth: I think your proposal is sensible and I agree. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done – I've changed the layout and English text according to the above and updated the Swedish translation to match. There is now an optional parameter to indicate the type of work depicted, which will categorise the file into Category:FoP-Sweden (artworks) or Category:FoP-Sweden (buildings). See the template documentation for details. The de, fr and mk translations need to be updated and have been tagged accordingly. LX (talk, contribs) 21:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LX: Thank you. I updated the German translation accordingly: Template:FoP-Sweden/de. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on whether or not something can be used

Hello, I am seeking advice as to whether a picture can or cannot be uploaded. As you maybe can tell from my user talk page, I have had some problems with this in the past, which were both honest mistakes, but this time I thought I would ask here first before I did anything. I am talking about this photo from Flickr, and I want to know if it's okay to use under creative commons? Thank you. Kmwebber (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber[reply]

No. Please read Commons:Flickr files. LX (talk, contribs) 21:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kmwebber, good on you for asking, but no, that photo can't be used because its license is CC-BY-NC-SA, meaning non-commercial. Commons files need to be free for all purposes including commercial. seb26 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both, and thank you for the flickr reference. I will just have to make do without a photo and that's okay! Thanks for the help! Kmwebber (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Kmwebber[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would written testimony, provided by a private person, submitted to the US Congress have copyright protection or would it be considered, under US law, a copyright free work form the US government

Would written testimony, provided by a private person, submitted to the US Congress and entered into the official record have copyright protection or would it be considered, under US law, a copyright free work form the US government?

Casprings (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government works are works that are created by government employees in course of their duties. So, any text written by a private person is copyrighted to that person. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Indies banknotes and/or "coin-notes".

Would money 💴 from Dutch India fall under Dutch copyright law preventing me to upload them in 70 yes, or are they free to upload? -- 08:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you mean by "Dutch India" ? Dutch East Indies became Indonesia, so I would suspect that their currency would fall under current-day Indonesian law. For Ceylon, I would assume current-day Sri Lankan law, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Netherlands Indies gulden (East Dutch India) should be PD due to their age if we can consider them to be anonymous works. Otherwise it will depend on the day off publication but still a fair amount off them would be PD. Older "local" (please let this not be offensive) like the Sumatradollar are most certainly PD. I believe that they used Guldens as a currency in some trading posts and other colony's. Then there is the Netherlands New Guinean gulden (obviously used in New Guinea) but I don’t think those are PD due to their age. Natuur12 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Book copyright notice and renewal

Hi, Is this book (Studies on hysteria [by] Josef Breuer and Sigmund Freud. Translated from the German and edited by James Strachey, in collaboration with Anna Freud, assisted by Alix Strachey and Alan Tyson.) in the public domain because of lack of notice or renewal? See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Freud - Studies on hysteria.djvu and Hathitrust record. I don't see a notice in IA scan. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edition was published in 2004, translated by James Strachey (1887–1967). On an early unnumbered page it says "This is a reprint of Volume II of the Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (Hogarth Press, 1955)". I see no reason to conclude that this translation is public domain. It is likely that the original German text is public domain. The illustrations of Freud and Breuer might be public domain, but the image quality is poor and we already have better pictures of these men. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was published in 1957. Yann (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reprint of a British book, so the lack of notice or renewal wouldn't be relevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? It is not the same publisher. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This copy may have been published in 1957, but Verbcatcher is entirely correct that it says it's a reprint of the 1955 Hogarth Press (i.e. British) edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK. For my information, what are the criteria which make the difference between a reprint and a new edition? This is confusing to me because the publishers of the UK and US editions are different. This is only relevant for us if the US edition might be in the public domain for some reason. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A new edition would only have a copyright on any new material. Any previously-published material still has the same copyright. A "reprint" sounds explicitly like it added no new expression. A "new edition" may have a new foreword, maybe reworded text, etc. But anything in that new edition which was simply copied from the old edition doesn't get its copyright extended. A "new edition" which simply changes the font or something would not create any new copyrights (other than typographical-arrangement ones for the few countries which have those). It's usually a matter of figuring out if there is any new expression in a "new edition". Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's clear for public domain material and new material published in a new edition. But the notice/renewal system still confuses me. If a text was published in the USA without a proper notice (or if the copyright was not renewed), this text is in the public domain in the USA, right? Isn't that sufficient for us to host this text? May be this can be uploaded in the English Wikisource. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a text was published anywhere without a proper notice or wasn't renewed, it was public domain in the USA. That's why other countries insisted on the URAA. Using the fact that US publishers relentlessly copied such works as a reason to upload them violates both international and US copyright law, as well as the spirit of Commons policy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure whether URAA applies to works which US PD status had been already exploited before URAA. If not, the book is still PD in US. And its "country of origin" (in the meaning used in Commons' rules) may be disputable. @Clindberg and Prosfilaes: could you comment on this? Ankry (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you were actively exploiting a work when the URAA came around in 1998, then you could continue until the copyright holder filed a notice of restoration or notified you directly, at which point you had a year to sell off stock. Since the WMF was not in existence prior to the restoration, it's not relevant to Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And if the point of Common's "country of origin" rules is that countries with the rule of the shorter term can use any work in Commons safely, then using a work from England and Germany because it was published in another country that no law considers its "country of origin" is counter-productive. I know it's debated and complex, but ignoring reprints that happen, especially in nations that don't respect international copyright law, should be one of the easier decisions for Commons to make.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Prosfilaes said, yes without notice it became public domain in the U.S. But that was the entire reason for the URAA -- to restore those works such that the notice/renewal formalities were essentially removed, and stop existing as well as future exploitation. The URAA would not apply if the original U.S. publication was within 30 days of the foreign publication, but otherwise, copyright was restored. If you were actively exploiting it at the time, you were a "reliance party" with certain limited rights, but those could be cut off as well. Commons is not a reliance party, and would count as a new exploitation, and would be a copyright violation. "Country of origin" is the Berne definition, which would be the country of first publication. If it was published in multiple countries within 30 days, things could get more interesting, but all we have documented here is a 1955 UK publication and a 1957 US publication, so it is not a US work and any loss of copyright due to lack of notice/renewal would have been restored by the URAA. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it is clearer now. Thanks for your detailed explanation. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted file

I'm thinking of uploading an image that was previously deleted - [4] (I'm not the original uploader of the image). I was considering uploading it to English Wikipedia using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} (i.e. public domain in the US but may not be transferred to the Commons) as the image had been previously published in 1921 in Britain, e.g. Leeds Mercury, 25 April 1921 - [5] (subscription required but free with limited access). However, thinking about it, I think it may be eligible to be uploaded to the Commons as the photographer appears to be unknown. Gettyimages which claims copyright on the image [6] credited the image to Topical Press Agency and an unnamed photographer (using a generic term "stringer"). A book which has this image gives the photographer as "not known" [7] (it gives the names of other photographers where known for other images). I intend to scan the image from the book (it is better than the deleted file) and upload it, but I'm interested to know whether this is something I should do here before doing so. Opinions would be appreciated. Hzh (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general: Do not reupload a deleted file. If you think a files should be undeleted, file an undeletion request here. Jcb (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is my reasoning valid though? Hzh (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not. For images from PMA+70 countries with unknown author, we use 120 years as a cut-off. So if there is evidence that the work would be from before 1897, the file could be restored with {{PD-old-assumed}}. Jcb (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, could well be. Does the 1921 newspaper mention a photographer? If not, it was published anonymously, and if the photographer was not made known before 1992, it would qualify for {{PD-UK-unknown}} it would seem. If the originally published version was a crop, and this is not, that may be different -- then we may not know a publication date of this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, no photographer is mentioned in the 1921 newspaper. Hzh (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About the image being cropped - Getty Image has another that has not been cropped - [8], however, the one published in 1921 was cropped, similar to the one previously uploaded to the Commons (the one uploaded however appears to have been trimmed a little at the bottom). Hzh (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the uploaded portion had been published in 1921, I'd say to request undeletion as PD-UK-unknown and PD-1923. Documenting the 1921 publication (and lack of author there) is key. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We do however, know the publisher. It was Topical Press Agency. So they would have just a 50 year copyright. So the name of the guy that pressed the shutter does not apply to this type of vintage image. Getty may have bought the library but they can only charges for the reproductions of the physical media they currently hold and not claim reproduction fees for reproduced images published before they acquired the collection, since pre published images before purchase, have long been PD. P.g.champion (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The UK's retroactive copyrights in 1996 would give the Topical Press Agency a 70 year copyright if no photographer named, and a 70pma term if they were named. The old 50 year term is now pretty much meaningless, other than for Crown Copyright works. However, it looks like even the 70 year term would have expired before 1996, so it was not technically restored either. Unpublished works get trickier though, since the 70 year term in the new laws are from date of publication. But, it's probable even the wider crop is PD as well in this case. The published one is more definite. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the comments, I've learnt a lot. I'll start requesting undeletion soon. Hzh (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:LTC Elizabeth Reynard (1897-1962).jpg tagged as PD, but don't think so

This file is tagged as being in the public domain, and taken before 1923, but that doesn't make sense. That would mean that she was less than 26 years old in the image.

Normally I wouldn't question it outright, but I am working on a series of articles in Wikipedia where the same user, Elisa.rolle, has been incurring copyright violations and was recently blocked for that activity.

Is there a template to apply to tag this image for review? Some other process?

In the short run, I removed it from the Wikipedia article about this person.

Thanks!CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found the image on this WWII site.CaroleHenson (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one more update. Since I removed that image, she posted a message here... with a link to another image where the subject is in a uniform. She is saying that any images of a person in a uniform are in PD. I thought the picture had to be taken by the federal government to be PD. Is being in a uniform sufficient to be PD? Arggh, this is getting complicated and confusing.CaroleHenson (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A uniform means nothing. At. All. If a work of the US federal government and proven to be such, then PD no problem— but military portraits can be taken by anyone, so this alone tells us nothing. The WWII site you indicate above provides no sourcing information, and so is not helpful in this matter. Also, the source for the image (as originally indicated, sort of) is here, and that source does not show the image anywhere (meaning the file should be marked as having an invalid source and marked for deletion unless one is found). Even if the image had come from that page, the photo credits at the bottom of it don't suggest that any of the page's images are in the public domain— if it was taken before 1923, that would not matter, but without knowing when the image was taken, we have no way of assessing this. Commons policy is when in doubt, delete— so far there is just too much doubt on this image. KDS4444 (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your help. Is there something that I need to do? I don't know what templates to apply here at commons (I don't think they are the same as the WP templates).CaroleHenson (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I put a tag on the file, I hope I did it right.CaroleHenson (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been deleted, which is probably the correct outcome in this instance. Nothing more to do or be done. KDS4444 (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Metlink Signage.jpg

Is this photograph covered under {{FoP-Australia}}? The subject (i.e. the sign) is a 2D work, but it has been on the repository for almost a decade so I thought I should ask. I have a somewhat similar photograph I wish to upload. - Pizza1016 (talk) 05:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This looks OK to me. Yann (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pizza1016 (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using image under restrictive license when license's application to specific image is compatible with "Attribution" tag

I have a clean record and I don't want to make a dumb mistake, so I'm asking first. Made a gif of this LIGO video which I feel would be helpful on a few articles (especially on the Simple English wiki). LIGO has quite the license, but I believe it makes my image compatible with the "Attribution" copyright tag. If not this image, I'd like to extend the question to images where this is indeed the case. Thanks in advance.

Here's my proposed wikitext license for such images:

© The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted.

This image is consistent with the LIGO Image Use Policy in such a way that it is compatible with the "Attribution" copyright tag. The policy can be found here and reads,

"Unless otherwise noted, images and video on Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) public web sites (public sites ending with either a or address) may be used for any purpose without prior permission, subject to the special cases noted below. Publishers who wish to have authorization may print this page and retain it for their records; LIGO does not issue image permissions on an image by image basis.

By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees:

  1. that neither Caltech (for nor MIT (for make any representations or warranties with respect to ownership of copyrights in the images, and do not represent others who may claim to be authors or owners of copyright of any of the images, and make no warranties as to the quality of the images. Neither Caltech nor MIT shall be responsible for any loss or expenses resulting from the use of the images, and you release and hold Caltech and MIT harmless from all liability arising from such use.
  2. to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy Caltech/MIT/LIGO Laboratory".
  3. that the endorsement of any product or service by Caltech, MIT, LIGO, or the National Science Foundation (NSF) must neither be claimed nor implied.

Special Cases

  • If an image includes an identifiable person, using the image for commercial purposes may infringe that person's right of privacy or publicity, and permission should be obtained from the person. For more information, contact the LIGO Information at +1.626.395.3064.
  • Caltech and/or MIT contractors and vendors who wish to use LIGO images in advertising or public relation materials should direct requests to Caltech Media Relations Office, telephone +1.626.395.3226.
  • Some image and video materials on LIGO public web sites may be owned by organizations other than Caltech or MIT. These owners have agreed to make their images and video available for journalistic, educational, and personal uses, but restrictions are placed on commercial uses. To obtain permission for commercial use, contact the copyright owner listed in each image caption and/or credit. Ownership of images and video by parties other than Caltech or MIT is noted in the caption material and/or image credit with each image."

Gizatsby (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

I see a fair amount of good content here. Let's make a custom license tag at {{LIGO}} or something, and then we can apply it to their content. The template can categorize these images into their own category, which will be a subcategory of Category:Attribution. Guanaco (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the {{LIGO}} template, and we can improve it later. For now it just does {{Attribution}} and fills in the credit line. Guanaco (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! I guess we can take this to the {{LIGO}} talk page then. Gizatsby (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we upload pictures of supermarkets (exterior buildings)?

Logo’s, and icons on supermarkets belong to the company/Corporation that owns them, however is it allowed to (let’s say I live in Brunswick) take a picture 📷 of a full Lidl, Aldi, and/or Combi building and upload it here? Is this the same in every country? In the case of the pictures 📷 the building “is central”, not the emblems. 📵

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. -- 11:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same in every country. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. There are a lot of Brunswicks in the world, and unfortunately, your Vietnamese IP address doesn't give any clues as to which one you're referring to. LX (talk, contribs) 11:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brunswick, Lower Saxony, and yeah there isn't any "Brunswick" here in Viet Nam. 😅
Thank you, I'll resort to the map you posted. You may brand this section as "resolved". -- 11:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Guanaco (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Postcards with coins from the 1900's.

On Bing Images there are a lot of these images of postcards with coins on them, so far here on Wikimedia Commons I've only seen 1, and it seems very likely that all of these could easily find a place on Wikipedia articles, however I cannot seem to fond the authorship of them and I'm not sure if I am allowed to just download the images from Bing and then upload them here, do they get "re-copyrighted" after someone published them without alteration, can I upload postcards from the 1900's with unsure authorship? -- 07:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of Austria-Hungary on these cards indicates that they were published between 1867 to 1918. They appear to be anonymous. The images liked from this page indicate that there is no attribution on the backs of the cards. The card you have linked to is marked "Made in Germany", and the others that I have looked at give German text first, so it is reasonable to conclude that German law applies. They appear to be public domain and would tag them with {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-anon-1923}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:พล.ต.อ. จักรทิพย์ ชัยจินดา.png

Not sure if File:พล.ต.อ. จักรทิพย์ ชัยจินดา.png has been uploaded under the correct license. --Uhooep (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may fall under number 3, "Regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units". I'm unfamiliar with the connotation of the official statute, how broadly their courts interpret it, etc. Reading Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Thailand, I see this: "Thai state documents are public domain, though creative works produced by or commissioned by government offices are protected by copyright."
I don't know of any valid, alternative license tag, so I'll nominate it for deletion. Guanaco (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:พล.ต.อ. จักรทิพย์ ชัยจินดา.png. Guanaco (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus banknotes

Regarding File:Cyprus-1-pound-1955-F-verso.jpg, File:Cyprus-1-pound-1955-F.jpg and File:Cyprus One Pound Note 1978.jpg, what is the copyright status of images of Cypriot banknotes? There are no details for Cyprus at Commons:Currency, but many former British territories impose copyright on banknotes. However, File:1 Palestine Pound 1939 Obverse.jpg asserts that it is public domain; do its arguments stand up and do they apply to 1955 Cyprus banknotes? Verbcatcher (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Psy press conference (September 2012)

Hello.What is the solution to this fop violation?Cropping or deletion?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the cartoon character in the background, it is not related to FOP at all. So, the solution is to delete images that display the full image of the character. On the other hand images like this one can be kept. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


It is a 1956 image. Can we upload it here on Commons?--Pierpao.lo (listening) 14:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should look at Commons:Hirtle_chart and decide this yourself. The publication date and publication circumstances will be the key. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technical schematics - discussion

I recently placed a question regarding copyright and technical schematics for the Hindenberg airship on the main Village Pump page, and was encouraged to mention the question here for more-expert advice. In the interest of centralizing the discussion, could editors please see (and comment on) the discussion there? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo NOJM.jpg

I'm not sure if the licensing on this is correct. According to the source provided for the image, this does not appear to have been released under a "cc-by-sa-4.0" license. The museum is, however, located in the United States which means that this logo is probably OK to convert to {{PD-textlogo}} and add a trademark tag. I am asking about this because pretty much the same file has been uploaded locally to English Wikipedia non-free content as en:File:New Orleans Jazz Museum Logo.png. The only difference between the two logos is the additonal text "A Gift To The World" found in the Commons logo. If the Commons version is OK and only requires a tweaking of the license, the English Wikipedia version does not need to be non-free and can be converted to PD and tagged for a move to Commons. Is there any reason why the Commons version would not be considered OK? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a clear PD-textlogo. I'll go ahead and take care of this.  Doing… Guanaco (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. We now have File:New Orleans Jazz Museum logo white.svg and File:New Orleans Jazz Museum logo black noborder.svg. I've replaced the image on enwiki. Guanaco (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this Guanaco. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Tagged as own work but I can find it here and here. Doug Weller (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is a copyright violation and I would have nominated it for deletion. However, a Commons administrator has since tagged it with {{No permission since}}, and will presumably delete it if no credible permission is added. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Doug Weller (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain?

Hi there. I added this image from Flickr. The photographer marked it as "public domain", likely so it could be shared, but this caused an error which I'm not sure how to fix, because the image does not meet any Commons criteria for public domain. If someone could have a look at it and tell me if it can be fixed I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks to me like what needs to be fixed is the copyright mark of the original file— the Public Domain Mark is supposed to be used by people other than the original author to mark very old images that are (almost certainly) in the public domain, not to mark one's own recent work and place it there. It seems the person who created this image made a mistake in choosing the intended license— you could try contacting him via Flickr mail and asking him to change/ correct it, though I realize this is not the ideal solution. KDS4444 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@KDS4444: Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. For me, PD-author would be fine in this case, as it seems pretty obvious the Flickr user is the author, and they marked it public domain. But it would be better if they marked it Creative Commons Zero, as that is more explicit and also one of their options there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Licencia en español: File:Serie 2700 de FEVE.JPG

File:Serie 2700 de FEVE.JPG y otros archivos tienen esta licencia:

Se prohíbe la reproducción total o parcial de los contenidos de esta Web sin citar su origen o solicitar autorización, salvo en las páginas en las que se indica expresamente otra circunstancia.

No sé si requiere ambos "citar su origen" y "solicitar autorización". ¿Es suficiente uno o el otro? Guanaco (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The specified source is dead, but the document from which the image was extracted is archived here. This document does not indicate a variation on the website's standard licence conditions. My knowledge of Spanish is inadequate to interpret these licence conditions. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: "Serie 2700 de FEVE.JPG and other archives/ files have this license: 'It is forbidden to reproduce, in whole or in part, the contents of this web page without citing its origin or asking for authorization, except in those pages in which expressly indicate otherwise.' I don't know if if it requires both 'citing its origin' and 'asking for authorization'. Is it enough to have [just] one or the other?" (You're welcome! KDS4444 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]
En este caso, me parece que es suficiente uno or el otro, porque dice "...origen O solicitar..." no "origen Y solicitar." KDS4444 (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was my first thought, but I was hoping for a more fluent Spanish speaker to interpret it. "Without...or" and similar constructions can be confusing in many languages. Guanaco (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, even in English this can be confusing! But I think that if the licensor wanted a reuser to obtain the licensor's permission and cite the licensor when reusing, the license would have used a slightly different construction. That, and the fact that it would be unusual for a licensor to demand both things of a reuser, but not at all unusual for the licensor to demand one or the other, no? KDS4444 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use?

Hi. I would like to upload this picture into the Commons, or upload it to a specific page:

The picture is aprox. 107 yrs old. Since this isn't for any commercial use, am I able to use it under Fair Use? Thanks Justbean (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Justbean: Fair use images aren't welcome on Commons, but some of the other Wikimedia wikis will accept them. Very old images are often in the public domain, but you have to know the rules and find the correct copyright tags. For Commons, they need to be in the public domain in their country of origin and the United States. This particular image appears to come from Minneapolis circa 1910, so all that's needed is {{PD-US-1923}}. Guanaco (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Guanaco! Appreciate the time and help. Justbean (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is not allowed on Commons. However, you may be able to upload it as public domain since its copyright might have expired. Do you know in which country and in what year the photograph was first published? There doesn't seem to be enough information on the site itself. - Pizza1016 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pizza1016, thanks for reaching out. Think Guanaco got me all squared away. Appreciate your willingness to help! Justbean (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to help! - Pizza1016 (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Guanaco!! Justbean (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Guanaco (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to re-license these?

File:Marion Morgan dancers, between 1914 and 1927.jpg LOC file with no known restrictions produced between 1914-1927. We have no template for the Genthe Collection where this is from. Thanks, We hope (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this collection may be restricted, but those images are marked as such. We hope (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two more from this batch, but from FDR Library:

1926 and 1933. FDR Library says for both "To the best of our knowledge, this image is in the public domain and can be used without further permission." We hope (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We hope, I will post about this image, but it's valid for all the images from the Library of Congress, if you search for the file: and then search for Rights Advisory, the Library of Congress marked the photos as "No known restrictions on publication." This is valid for all the Arnold Genthe Photos I uploaded. Regards, --Elisa Rolle 14:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Since this is dated between 1914 and 1927, it's not clear which copyright tag here would apply. Some of the Genthe Collection is restricted-see the link above. "The photographs Arnold Genthe made for his own use are considered to be in the public domain." Other photographs, however, may have been produced as "work for hire" and copyright may be held by the original client." All LOC images are NOT necessarily in the public domain. We hope (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We hope, I will try to be more clear. Image by Image (not the collection as a whole), I checked the decision of the LOC: if you click on the About this image page (for the picture above is, and you go to the Rights Advisory section (that is in all LOC ABout image pages) for this picture in particular the LOC states: "No known restrictions on publication." This is a decision the LOC has already taken. And this is valid for all Arnold Genthe, Francis Benjamin Johnston, Historical Building Survey photos I uploaded. Moreover, I even personally contacted them regarding Carl Van Vechten due to the claim from a publisher, and they confirmed that the Carl Van Vechten photos donated by Saul Mauriber at the LOC are in Public Domain. Regards, --Elisa Rolle 14:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
And I will also try being more clear. This particular file I've asked about a proper copyright tag for, has NO possible restrictions. Many of the others from this collection uploaded by you may possibly be restricted, as per the link above. If it was valid for everything in the Genthe Collection why is this upload of yours File:Miss Marion Carstairs, 1928 or 1929.jpg Marion Carstairs- listed as being possibly restricted? "Publication may be restricted" ? See the link above. We hope (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We hope, I uploaded those files from the Genthe's collection since after contacting the LOC (and you can do if you want, they usually reply very fast) they will tell you that, for the work for hire, you have to contact the heir... and Miss Marion Carstairs, like Miss Alice DeLamar, or the other misses you will find, do not have any heir who claimed the copyright of these photos at the LOC. Regards, --Elisa Rolle 14:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer hearing from those who have no involvement in these uploads. We hope (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We hope, this is why I told you to contact the LOC instead of forwarding my contacts... I was sincere when I told you they reply fast, I think to me they replied in one day max. Write to them and ask, if they have a claim from an heir, they will give you the contact so you can check. If they do not have a claim, it's up to you to search for the heir. In the case of Miss Marion Morgan or Miss Alice DeLamar, you can easily find notice online they died without direct heir. Alice DeLamar left 25% of her estate to Eva La Galliena, who died without directs heirs as well, and in any case, if they did not renovate the copyright before 1977, the photo went in Public domain. (A work is in the public domain. This applies to [Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.] Date of Publication [1923 through 1977] Conditions [Published without a copyright notice] Copyright Term [None. In the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities]. This applies also to [Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad] Conditions [Published without compliance with US formalities, and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996]). Regards, --Elisa Rolle 14:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And once more I am posting-I would prefer to hear from those NOT involved in these uploads. We hope (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We hope, fine, I was trying to help, so I will give you one last input (that I hope will be confirmed by whoever you want): Arnold Genthe died in 1942 (75 years ago), therefore the copyright for author, as general rule, is expired 5 years ago. So even the restrictions due to it being a work for hire, have expired. Whoever own a portrait, even of themself, do not own the right to the reproduction, that is of the author, and after 70 years from the death of the author, those rights expire. Regards, --Elisa Rolle 15:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Whenever possible, please use the {{LOC-image}} template. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best guess is {{PD-US}}. It is quite likely they were published without notice at some point (i.e. given to the Library by the Roosevelts then published), or not renewed. Either that, or the Roosevelts dropped copyright when they gave the images to the presidential library (which would be {{PD-Author}}). But they likely became PD due to formality issues as well. But yes, if it is also available at the Library of Congress directly, add the LOC-image template in the "other versions" section. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Carl. The 2 Roosevelt photos are from the FDR Library-what about the one remaining from LOC taken between 1914-1927 since it "straddles" the line between pre-1923 and PD-1978 no mark/copyright not renewed? We hope (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The two Roosevelt images were probably informal snapshots by an unknown person or persons. If there is still a copyright it would be owned by the heirs of the photographer(s) and the Roosevelts would not have the right to release the copyrights. It seems to me unlikely that they were published until the Library made them available on line. That's almost certainly post 1989, so they will be under copyright until 120 years after creation. So, unless someone finds evidence of publication without notice before 1989, I don't think we can keep them.
As for the Genthe image, first, the comment by User:Elisa.Rolle (who needs to sign her posts) is not correct. Few US images made in the 2oth century were subject to 70 pma. Also, work-for-hire does not apply. There is no evidence that Genthe worked as a photographer as an employee of anyone during his entire career -- he was self employed. It is possible that he licensed the use of this image to Marion Morgan or others but that would not affect the copyright. The actual image digitized here is a lantern slide, so it is very likely that it was used as part of a slide show and, therefore, published. There is no evidence of notice on this slide and while a general notice at the beginning or end of the show would have covered all of the contents, that seems unlikely, so I would keep this one ad PD-no notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Jim! Have licensed the Genthe image as above. Someone re-licensed both FDR Library photos as Pre-1978 no notice, so I've put them up for DR with a link to this discussion. We hope (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michel Temer Oficial.jpg

Hi Is that photo really free ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence that it is. I've removed the clearly invalid public domain tag, and tagged it {{No license}}. Guanaco (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of originality on fonts in Australia?

I'm currently working on extracting the tram number icons from [9] to place in the infoboxes of their relevant articles. The font used for the numbers (and the moon icon for some routes) is, however, developed by PTV themselves (it's called 'Network Sans' and a Google search led me to this listing). I was originally hoping to upload them on Commons as {{PD-ineligible}}, but given Australia's low threshold of originality, I wanted to seek a second opinion first. In the case this isn't possible, I'll upload it locally instead. Pizza1016 (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Stylised individual letters can be protected by copyright, if they are the result of skill and effort and not merely copied from somewhere else." That sucks. I guess I can't upload here then. - Pizza1016 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ed. Toda.'s Annam and its minor currency 💴

Now I would like to know about the ambiguity of the illustrations in Ed. Toda.’s Annam and its minor currency, a book 📚 published in 1882, now this book is hosted on the website Art-Hanoi operated by Sema (known here on Wikimedia Commons as @Pyvanet: but he quit uploading here after “too many of {his} images were deleted” causing him to give up on the outlet), currently there are no images from Toda on Wikimedia Commons, ABD/Nland the very first illustration described in the book (a coin from the Ðinh Dynasty) is on display and uploaded to Italian Wikipedia, other than that no image of these are located anywhere on a Wikimedia Wiki, and the license used on Italian Wikipedia (I think 🤔) is “fair use”.

I can’t seem to find much information on the author other than that he wrote the book, I’ve seen some sources claim that he was a British man named “Edward Toda”, others that he was a Frenchman named “Edouard Toda”, and some very obscure blogs at the dark edges of the internet (and a Wikipedia article that’s not in English) that he was Hispanic and named “Eduardo Toda”, now I can’t confirm any of these and will just assume that this book was published in Viet Nam or the United Kingdom 👑. The authorship of the illustrations in the book is also disputed, Dr. Allen Barker (basically “the Qui-Gon Jinn of Vietnamese cash coins”) describes the possibility of these images being drawn up by Toda's wife in his book 📚 on Vietnamese văn, however no sources can either confirm or deny that. As not only the country of publication of the book, the authorship of the images, and copyright © laws of the places of their origin are important I also wanted to know if “New Copyright ©” was created with these images being digitised.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱.

Now having discussed the fact that the owner of Art-Hanoi digitised these images and that he’s willing to allow for their usage on Wikimedia Commons an COMMONS:OTRS ticket 🎟 could easily be fetched, however the owner of Art-Hanoi attempted to upload those illustrations here and they got deleted, now I can’t seem to find as to why they were deleted so I’ll ask for the status of their copyright © here. Every image should also “migrate” the below paragraph describing them, and a link 🔗 should be made to the Art-Hanoi page of origin from either Toda’s book and/or “the Online Vietnamese (cash) coin identifier”.

Now if we could use those images I would recommend that a bot 🤖 would fetch those images as the person attempting to upload them might get banned and have their account creation options blocked indefinitely for attempting to upload so many “copyrighted” images, the bot could automatically add the ticket 🎟 , and for the purposes of both categorising and using the images special care would have tự be considered.

First, and foremost the illustrations from Toda’s book 📚 aren’t factual at all, Vietnamese cash coins tend to be idiosyncratic (calligraphically diverse) with regular script, semi-cursive script, and even seal script appearing on the same coin, Toda’s illustrations however only contain a single calligraphic style, another issue is that all rims are “drawn” (made) equal, in reality however the thickness of a cash coins rims can be used by numismatists to pin-point the era, and dynasty of origin. For those reasons these coins should not be brought into “Category:Coins of Vietnam”, but a new category perhaps called “Category:Illustrations from Annam and its minor currency” or if that’s too long “Category:Illustrations by Ed Toda” (or maybe “from”, as their authorship is currently unknown). I plan on using them in the Wikipedia article “Vietnamese cash” in the 2 non-French Wikitables as “Toda image” (and for coins not described in his book 📚 “None” shall be used), and put next to that one another box simply marked “image” for actual photographs from Wikimedia Commons (as I expect future generations of contributors to eventually upload these, as will I in the near future).

Note 📝: I’ll place a “note 📝” at the top of the “Toda images” column explaining that they are most likely factually inaccurate. Note 2 📝: For this same reason if a bot 🤖 were to upload these files it could add the tag “the factual accuracy of this image is disputed” with the explanation “the calligraphic style may not reflect that of the actual coin”.

Of course if no-one is willing to build a bot for this task I would take it upon myself, but I would first need to know if I am permitted to do so.

Now my issue here is that I’m not sure what copyright fall on the images from the book 📚 hosted on Art-Hanoi, are they still the copyright of Toda? (or possibly his wife), did Sema (Pyvanet) acquire their rights as he digitised them? Does Art-Hanoi’s terms of use apply to Toda’s book on there regardless of the age of the book? Is a ticket 🎟 even necessary? -- 13:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This book was published 135 years ago. So, the book and all illustrations in it (except Appendix) are almost certainly in public domain now (70 pma). Any scans of it are also in public domain and can therefore be uploaded to Commons. If you know the account name under which they were uploaded before, we can check the rational for their deletion. Ruslik (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Pyvanet", but it may have been uploaded to English Wikipedia as I see that the majority of his contributions here on Wikimedia Commons were migrated by others users, and that they were originally uploaded to Wikipedia. -- 10:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean images like File:South Vietnam 500 Dong 1966.jpg, they are not vary old and were deleted as copyright violations. Ruslik (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to WorldCat, they have his name as "Eduart Toda y Guell". There are Wikipedia pages on him in a few languages, including es:Eduard Toda, which gives his full name as Eduardo Toda y Güell. He lived from 1855 to 1941. The Commons category is Category:Eduard Toda. The book actually is still in copyright in Spain for a few more years (until 2022), but since that book was published in Shanghai from the looks of it, country of origin would be China and the copyright is long past (50 pma). It is public domain in the U.S., as it was published before 1923. The license can be {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1941}}. Books of his first published in Spain would actually not be OK to upload, but that one is fine.
In general, there is likely no "digitization" copyright. There would have to be something creative inherent in the mechanism used to digitize something in order for that act to exceed the Commons:threshold of originality, which is unlikely for scans. We have the Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag page and the {{PD-scan}} tag which can be applied, if someone uploads scans from someone who believes they do have a copyright (again, rather unlikely). For digitization by photography (as opposed to scanner), that *might* (in countries with a very low threshold, generally the UK and countries based on its law) be enough for a copyright -- though we would not recognize that here; see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and {{PD-Art}}. Once a photograph departs from copying a 2-D work like a painting, though, it becomes increasingly likely that the photograph does have a copyright. For example, we would consider photographs of coins to typically have a separate copyright on the photo itself, so those photos would need to be licensed. And the designs on the currency itself may also have a still-running copyright, which we respect -- see Commons:Currency. If the uploader had his contributions deleted in the past, it may have been due to a still-existing copyright on the currency itself, which is understandably frustrating. But if they were photographs of out-of-copyright coins that the uploader did take himself, those should be OK -- but sometimes people are unsure if the uploader simply copied the photograph off of the internet, so sometimes it's best to go through the COM:OTRS process to indicate that the uploader is associated with a website, to avoid that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you that resolves my questions regarding this issue. 😃 You may close this thread as "resolved ✅ " -- 11:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

License review of Public Domain Mark files

Hi, Some files under Public Domain Mark on Flickr were positively license reviewed by the FlickreviewR bot. This seems odd to me if we don't accept these files. See e.g. File:Eduardo Bolsonaro 2015.jpg, File:Carlos Bolsonaro Flickr Picture 2015.jpg‎, File:Flávio Bolsonaro 2015.jpg‎, etc. Or the license changed at the source? Pinging @Elisfkc: . Regards, Yann (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems to have correctly flagged them as requiring manual review. We can't accept files solely on the basis of an unsubstantiated PD Mark, but it's also not grounds for automatic rejection of content. All the bot can do is to confirm that they are indeed tagged as PD Mark. It can't figure out what the PD rationale should be or if the files should be deleted. That's why such files need manual review. LX (talk, contribs) 10:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I believe that the reason they were deleted before was because they failed to have any PD rationale that is acceptable on Commons. Elisfkc (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does File:Anunnaki.jpg have a GNU license?

The file was copied from [10] and neither that page nor [11] says anything about any licensing. This drawing seems to appear only in fringe sources and I can't trace it to any authentic inscriptions (which might be more a reflection of my inability, but still...). Doug Weller (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an ancient Mesopotamian inscription then it is old enough to be in the public domain, and an accurate photograph of it would be licencable as {{PD-Art}}. If, as the recent {{Fact}} tag suggests, this is a modern design in the style of an ancient inscription then we need a credible evidence of licensing by its author. The claimed {{GFDL}} is not supported by the specified source. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video game mod screenshots

Is a video game mod screenshot Derivative work of the original video game? Does it matter if there is "nothing" visible from the original game? In this case, I'm wondering about: File:Tinkers_Construct_smeltery.png (see summary section's source part). As far as I can tell, this seems to be a pretty straight-forward case of derivative work. The mod does not provide the framework in which new models, additional code and textures can exist by themselves and requires the game to be present to tick, process and render them. Am I interpreting this right? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK  ▎enWiki 09:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but I wouldn't think of this as a derivative work. When you're using the game engine to display your own work, that doesn't seem to be much different from using, say, a 3D drawing program to display your 3D models. From the Minecraft EULA:
Any Mods you create for the Game from scratch belong to you (including pre-run Mods and in-memory Mods) and you can do whatever you want with them, as long as you don't sell them for money / try to make money from them and so long as you don't distribute Modded Versions of the Game. Remember that a Mod means something that is your original work and that does not contain a substantial part of our code or content. You only own what you created; you do not own our code or content.
There is a non-commercial clause in it, but to me that looks like a non-copyright restriction similar to "house rules"? Pinging the uploader: @Amberrock: . --El Grafo (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I would argue that the game's engine does not matter for copyright purposes, in the same way that it does not matter that you used Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Paint to generate an image. The copyright belongs with the creator, and not with the creator of the software who enabled you to render everything. Amberrock (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the details of Minecraft, but in general, a derivative work is where you have copied expression from another, and added additional copyrightable expression of your own. You have to identify expression that was actually copied. If there are textures from the original game present, that could be copied expression. If there was a structure designed in the original game that is simple covered by new textures, the form or model of that structure may be copied expression. But if all elements are new, and are just using a rendering engine to show them, then I'm pretty sure there is no copied expression. At that point, it is an original work. Minecraft would own the source code / binary to that rendering engine -- so you can't distribute that -- but they would have no inherent rights over such a mod. Just like if you create an SVG, it's all just text underneath, but you would still own the expression in the rendered design. No SVG engine can claim copyright over anything that passes through it, since the resulting expression is completely dependent on the input -- it's only the input which is the copyrightable part in that case. To be a derivative work, you would need to identify specific expression (the actual lines, etc.) which was copied from an existing copyrighted work. The output image does not contain the source code to the engine (nor part of its binary), so the copyright of the engine should not matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got much to say that hasn't already been said here, but I also believe that the engine an image was rendered in is irrelevant to the copyright status of the final image.
COM:SS seems to say that freely-licensed screenshots can be created from non-free software provided that you:
  • Use a free skin, or make sure the skin fits {{PD-ineligible}}: Skin is not included in the screenshot, so not relevant.
  • Cut away all possibly non-free elements: The image is cropped to only the freely-licensed parts of the mod, not including any game UI or game content.
  • The content of the screenshot must be free too: The mod is available under the MIT license.
While these guidelines were most likely written to apply to simpler 2D programs, I don't see why they would not be applicable here too. For example, screenshots of Internet Explorer are acceptable, as long as it doesn't contain the application's interface and the website is freely licensed. Despite the fact Internet Explorer's rendering engine is used to display the website, the image is entirely freely licensed. I don't see why the case wouldn't be the same for a video game mod, assuming the screenshot only contained free content.
--Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did my pictures get deleted if I posted them myself

I uploaded a picture of a public domain coin I own, as I only made that account to ask why I got blocked all my content was deleted and I was blocked again with all my questions deleted as well and then my images were deleted based on a supposed copyright violation even if I took them myself and they were already used on Wikipedia, why did they get deleted? Peter Björn Bosch (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC) I know that simply by asking this my images will get deleted I will get blocked again and will get no answer but this is my only account I constantly get deleted but never vandalized any article or uploaded any copyrighted scan I cannot abuse multiple accounts if I only have ome and that constantly gets blocked too. Peter Björn Bosch (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Björn Bosch: Please link your original account so that we can properly investigate the issue. Guanaco (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neusrel red.gif

The file is described as 'Own work', but I don't feel convinced... I made a note at the File talk:Neusrel red.gif a month ago, that the en-wiki draft article en:Draft:Neusrel presents the image as a logo of a proprietary software, so probably some more evidence should be provided, that:

  • the uploader is actually the copyright owner;
  • the image can be published under CC BY-SA.

Please comment. Are there any other actions I (or someone else) should take?

Pinging the uploader: @Crónk: . --CiaPan (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This logo is unlikely to meet the threshold of originality in the US or Germany. {{PD-textlogo}} should be fine. Guanaco (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, but is it in scope? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:09635jfDaniel Padilla Bench Billboards Advertisements Pasig River Mandaluyong Cityfvf 04.jpg

Can Commons accept this file as licensed? There is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines and this does not seem to be a case of de minimis. The photo can be licensed as such, but I think the copyright of the billboard needs to be taken into account. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The billboard is the focal point and can't be DM. 50 years protection after first publication for anon works in the Philippines. Not acceptable IMHO. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hedwig in Washington for taking a look. The file has been tagged with {{Npd}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Question about {{PD-UA-exempt}}:

"Стаття 10. Об'єкти, що не охороняються

Не є об'єктом авторського права:

а) повідомлення про новини дня або поточні події, що мають характер звичайної прес-інформації;

б) твори народної творчості (фольклор);

в) видані органами державної влади у межах їх повноважень офіційні документи політичного, законодавчого, адміністративного характеру (закони, укази, постанови, судові рішення, державні стандарти тощо) та їх офіційні переклади;

г) державні символи України, державні нагороди; символи і знаки органів державної влади, Збройних Сил України та інших військових формувань; символіка територіальних громад; символи та знаки підприємств, установ та організацій;

д) грошові знаки;

е) розклади руху транспортних засобів, розклади телерадіопередач, телефонні довідники та інші аналогічні бази даних, що не відповідають критеріям оригінальності і на які поширюється право sui-generis (своєрідне право, право особливого роду).

Проекти офіційних символів і знаків, зазначених у пунктах "г" і "д" частини першої цієї статті, до їх офіційного затвердження

розглядаються як твори і охороняються відповідно до цього Закону."
—  Верховна Рада України; Закон від 23.12.1993 № 3792-XII

Does г) mean include private entities or are only gov-enterprises (local or statewide) included? @Ahonc, George Chernilevsky, Sealle, and Well-Informed Optimist: Could you please have a look into this? Thank you! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a well-known hole in the law, and a literal reading of the text allows us to believe that this paragraph of the law applies to any organization. Sealle (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like any organisation, but it should be only official symbol. If symbol is not adopted as official it is not in PD.--Anatoliy (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 198 photos from that carry CC BY or BY-SA license. All are without license review and they probably wouldn't pass under current license tags as unfortunately doesn't indicate license version. Should these images be deleted as suggested by {{Cc-by}}? Or could we perhaps just ignore the "CC" part of the license information and tag these files using {{Attribution}} for "BY" and some generic attribution share-alike tag similar to {{Nagi Attribution Share Alike}} for "BY-SA"?

Additionally there are currently 88 images from the same source that carry CC0 1.0 license, but also lack license review. As source page for these says simply "общественное достояние" (public domain), they might pass review under some more generic public domain tag. 13:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian government licensing / PD

I possibly screwed up with the deletion nomination for File:Distintivo da Escola de Sargentos das Armas.png, as there seems to be some kind of PD-gov for Brazilian government works. Maybe the license can simply be fixed (CC seems to be wrong either way) and the image kept - it would be great if someone knowledgeable with this kind of Brazilian Public Domain could comment in the deletion discussion to avoid an erroneous deletion. A similar situation is at File:Escola de Sargentos da Armas.jpg, that could also use a clearer license and could possibly be saved. GermanJoe (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-BrazilGov}} only applies to government works from before 1983, and pt:Escola de Sargentos das Armas wasn't funded until 1984. LX (talk, contribs) 20:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot (I read that date, but it didn't fully register). I have removed my erroneous comment from the deletion discussion to avoid unnecessary confusion about wrong conclusions on my part. GermanJoe (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There's No Camp Like Home" title card

Would this title card image from this Wikia page be acceptable on Commons as a case of {{PD-text}} or would there be issues with the font? (The title card is for "There's No Camp Like Home," an episode from the animated series The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.) --Gazebo (talk) 09:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard font. Ruslik (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I am correct, you are saying that there should not be any copyright issues with the font. I have uploaded the title card image as File:There's-No-Camp-Like-Home-title-card.png. --Gazebo (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If an organization has questions, is the Contact Page a good resource to include in an initial email?

Today I wrote (via a web page contact form) to Europol to see if they might want to attach an Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license to one or more of their images to help spread the word about their new Stop Child Abuse - Trace an Object campaign--and so that we could include a relevant image on the Wikipedia article about the Stop Child Abuse - Trace an Object campaign.

For my letter to Europol, I used the email template as a guide and included links to relevant web pages, e.g., Commons:Licensing. At the end of the letter I wrote: "I can answer some basic questions, but since I am a volunteer editor, if you have legal or more complicated questions, I recommend writing to or consult the Wikimedia Commons Contact page for other means of contacting someone who can answer your question(s)."

Is that a good way to do it, or would you recommend something else?


Markworthen (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musicl sculpture and FoP

When a public musical fountain playing randomly musical works and I'm recording a video of it. Can it be theoretically consider as FoP issue. Let's say that if the same music is played all the time. Can it can consider as it exhibited in a permanent way. Our policy does not speak about it. -- Geagea (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Ruslik (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]



I have a question pertaining to this template, which states that works published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice and were never registered with the copyright office are in the public domain.

This template pertains to all photographs that were first published in the US without copyright notices between 1978 and 1989, including those by foreign photographers (assuming the same photographs weren't ever published in their home country), right?

That does seem to be the gist of this but I wanted somebody more experienced with copyright issues on Commons to confirm.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is which takes precedence, the country in which the work was first published, or the country in which it originated?

Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The country of first publication matters most (for Commons). If you are actually in another country, it is their laws that matter, regardless of which ones Commons uses. If a foreign author first publishes a work in the United States, then the "country of origin" would be considered the U.S., and it would have had to follow the laws at the time (and it would not have been restored by the URAA in 1996). The country of origin is based on the country of first publication, not the nationality of the author nor where the work was made. While unpublished, it is based on the author's nationality, but an author can choose to publish a work in a different country with a longer term, for example. Countries usually fully protect works of their own citizens regardless of where it was first published, so it's likely that author would have full protection in their own country even if public domain in the U.S. And it's not clear that becoming public domain due to lack of notice would actually count for the "rule of the shorter term" in other countries -- they may use 95 years from publication as the shorter term -- so you would need to look at the laws in the country of intended use. But for Commons, such a work would be OK to upload, as we would use U.S. law only to make the determination, and such a work would have needed to follow copyright formalities before March 1, 1989 (which is when the U.S. joined the Berne Convention). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Just to make doubly clear, I'll outline the particular scenario I'm dealing with. It concerns this photograph.
The current tag on that photo is inaccurate. It was not taken by an employee of the US government. I recently became aware of this and set off to locate the original author/source.
Here's the history on the photograph: it was taken in Angola circa 1979/80, but remained unpublished in that country. Original author was an unknown Angolan soldier who was killed in that country's war with South Africa; his personal effects were confiscated by the latter for intelligence purposes. The South African embassy in Washington D.C. donated the original classified negative to the US government.
Then in March 1982 some senate hearings were held in the US in which this photograph was first shown publicly for the first time. Later in the year, the US Government Printing Office published a copy of the minutes from the hearings, which included scans of the negatives displayed. Therefore, the first time the actual photograph was published would've been in 1982 in the US. There is no copyright notice provided in the published minutes from the hearing, since they were considered military intelligence photographs with a deceased foreign author.
Would it be accurate to change the tag on that particular image to Template:PD-US-1978-89? --Katangais (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be not a legitimate publication as it was done without permission of the author or his heirs. Ruslik (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I considered this, which is why I included that detail in my summary of the photo's history. However, regardless of whether the original work was acquired in an unorthodox manner (in this case an act of wartime) since it was previously unpublished in its country of origin and indeed only published in the US, is the template legitimate? --Katangais (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Boy that gets into a tangle. I guess the main question is if the confiscation of the copyright by South Africa was legal or not -- if they claimed to be the copyright holders, and that was deemed valid, then publication was done with permission (and maybe even transfer to U.S. Government would be valid, and they could have released it to the public domain anyways). There certainly are examples of some copyrights being seized by other countries -- it's possible you'd get a different answer in Angola vs South Africa. The U.S. did so with WWII German copyrights, though that status was only permanent for government-owned works. And I guess there is the question if this was a personal photo, or something done as part of duties as a soldier, perhaps making it a government-owned work. If it is still a private, unpublished Angolan copyright -- may be more interesting. The 1990 Angolan copyright law had a term of 25pma for photographs, which has passed. They passed a new law in 2014, but not sure if it was retroactive (cannot find an online copy; law 14/15 of 31 July 2014). If not, it would be PD in Angola today. The U.S., less sure -- it may have a term of 70pma I think. Angola has not explicitly joined the Berne Convention, but it did join the WTO, and I think that was enough to trigger the URAA in November 1996. Before that, there was likely no copyright relations between the two countries so publishing at the time it would not have been violating anyone's rights, so it was technically legal. Dunno. It seems like it is likely PD in the country of origin either way -- the main question is the U.S. status (if it is not the country of origin). It is harder because we are not likely to ever get a precedent-setting ruling on something like this. Probably on the borderline for deletion... there is some solid reason to believe it's OK in Angola, while the U.S. is more gray -- very hard to say what a court would do. Not sure I like deleting in that circumstance. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate the solid analysis. I'd hesitate to mark the photo with a PD-Angola tag though, since that explicitly states that "This work was first published in Angola..." when it fact it was not. The work was first published in the US.
Perhaps a custom template which details the whole complicated situation, along with links to the scanned South African paperwork which accompanied its transfer to the US government, would be preferential here. --Katangais (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the work is considered unpublished, there is likely no way it can ever be legally published (since it would require the consent of the copyright owner). For an unpublished work, the country of origin is "the country of the Union of which the author is a national". It's either PD-Angola or PD-1978. It's just that if it's PD-Angola, then the US situation is probably quite different. With really no chance of it ever changing -- it would be as orphan as an orphan work can be. But I really don't know for sure that it would be considered unpublished -- and if it is legally published, then it seems like it would be OK. But yes, I would document all of that research you did -- that is a really impressive sleuthing job, and all of that is helpful information. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TrainPix images

We have quite a few images from the Russian-language site TrainPix. The images have "Лицензия [License]: BY", "Лицензия: Zero", etc. I'm unable to find specific license versions, or evidence that "Zero" means CC0 Public Domain. Could someone more familiar with the site and/or Russian help me with this? Xenotron?

Some of the images:

Guanaco (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I was wondering about (see above), which seems to be related to this site and which has similar licensing information. I can't find license versions either on neither site, not from terms of use, FAQ, nor elsewhere. Above I suggested that CC licenses could be perhaps replaced. (I don't know what to replace "Zero" with though.)
Seems that Daphne has reviewed most TrainPix images by now. Daphne Lantier, could you please clarify, how the license version is picked for these images? 15:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BY means CC-BY-3.0 and Zero means CC-0. You have to remember that this is a Russian language site, and that what we see as "CC-BY" looks like "SS-VU" to a Russian speaker, while Zero doesn't need the CC which just looks like SS to a Russian speaker. I've been reviewing these for several months now this way, and before me INeverCry reviewed them like this for a year or more. I think it's nice that TrainPix, which is used primarily by Russians and Ukrainians, displays the license in understandable English and at the top of each page where it can easily be seen. Daphne Lantier 17:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are also licenses like CC BY 4.0 and CC BY 2.0 that come with different legal texts. Daphne, what I meant was how do you know that it's version 3.0 here? See also warning at {{Cc-by}}.
As for "Zero" there's indeed only one CC license version, but associating this word with certain license text while it isn't event part of CC licence's offical name nor abbreviation (CC0 1.0) still seems rather vague. 17:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I now registered on TrainPix to see their upload form. As expected its dropdown menu clarifies that "BY" stands for attribution and "BY-SA" stands for "Attribution Share - Share Alike". But still no version nor link to specific license is given. And "Zero" stands for "Passing into the public domain". Based on the latter I'd say that {{PD-author}} would be appropriate to tag "Zero" images. 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys want to change up licenses, here are the 553 uploads that will need attention. Personally I think you're doing a lot of pointless work to fix what isn't broken. CC-BY-3.0 and CC-Zero are very common licenses, and many of these images have been on Commons for a year or more under those licenses. You'll also have to tell Xenotron (who is a native Russian speaker unlike either of you) and the Polish user who uploads from Trainpix (I don't remember their name, but you'll find it on quite a few of the 553 uploads) to change the upload procedure they've been using in future to suit your interpretation. @Guanaco: I think it would've been a bit more respectful and considerate to post this at my talk if you're going to question my reviews. I'll leave the reviewing to you from now on though, I'm through with it. I'll go back to DR work. Daphne Lantier 19:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for "Zero" we might apply good faith and say that to our best knowledge there's no reasonable doubt that "Zero" means CC0 1.0, and in that sense consider that current tag "isn't broken". But as for BY and BY-SA, without providing further data on appropriate license version, these images are misreviewd. (By saying so my intent is not to accuse anyone, but to clear things up. And neither were given examples reviewed when this topic was started.)
Version 3.0 being common doesn't mean that's what the author meant. Other versions are common too, for instance on some sources like Flickr and Panoramio version 2.0 is common instead.
If we reach consensus that {{Attribution}} (for BY) and {{Copyrighted free use provided that}} (for BY-SA; or some new custom tag) would be appropriate then I'm happy to help replacing tags and putting images up for (re)review. 06:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think generic {{Attribution}} is applicable, because all of the CC licenses have specific additional restrictions such as prohibiting restrictive technological measures like DRM. I'm willing to accept "Zero" as meaning CC0 because of its proximity to BY and BY-SA which clearly represent some versions of CC licenses. For BY and BY-SA, looking at the big picture, I doubt a copyright holder could win a claim in court so long as the re-user complied with some version of the CC license. So it's probably not wrong to pass the license review of these. But it would be better if we had clear version info. Guanaco (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we apply {{Attribution}}, then we obviously wouldn't consider these images as being under CC license at all. Though it's likely that people who set up given source sites intended to use CC licenses (and their users just went for what's available), it has turned out the way it has. I agree that it's better to use a license that has a legal text, but in such case it seems we can either apply low grade option in good faith or throw images away. We have used attribution tag for similar cases in the past, for instance here, where source also uses CC specific terms, but fails to associate works with any specifc license or license version.
Claiming that copyright holder probably wouldn't win in court is to my understanding against precautionary principle. It isn't even iffy copyright status as for BY and BY-SA since we really don't know which CC license applys (or is likely to apply). 07:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In all but a few edge cases, the licenses have the same basic requirements. If, say, CC-BY 2.5, were unfree, we'd have a serious concern. I came here seeking a simple answer about which version, and there isn't one. The problem isn't huge, and it's not in anyone's best interest to pursue deletion, so I'm letting this one rest. Guanaco (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having the same basic requirements doesn't make licenses with different legal texts and different specific requirements the same license. I believe some basic clarity is necessariy. If there is simple (free) copyright claim and no specific legal text associated for certain image then this is what we should say for this certain image. Otherwise what's the point of reviewing licenses or how the review procedure could be taken seriously.
I agree that there are more urgent problems on Commons, but this shouldn't mean that less urgent ones are non-issues and shouldn't be handled in the best possible way. Besides, the sooner we clear up the copyright status of old images, the sooner we can expect that new ones from these sources are uploaded to Commons with hopefully appropriate license tags.
I came here with a seemingly simple solution to a problem that I ran into earlier, seeking if this solution is acceptable. 11:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lymantria, I see that you have dealt with similar cases (mentioned above) in the past. Any advice here? 11:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty common on that site to just say "BY" or "BY-SA" or sometimes "CC-BY" (without version) as the license. In that context, it's also pretty clear that "Zero" means CC0, since they are also referring to all the other CC licenses in about the same way. Yes, it's not ideal that they do not specify explicit versions. But if we know it is one of the CC-BY versions, which while not identical language have very very similar legal requirements, I'm not sure it's worth going a completely different direction with a license tag, which would really be less accurate than any one of the CC-BY versions. The most common-sense thing for me is to simply use the current version of those licenses at the time the image was uploaded on the other site, likely either 3 or 4. Similarly, if someone licenses a work "GPL", we would probably use the current version of the license, not decide to use something completely different because they didn't specify GPL 2.0 or GPL 3.0. If someone wants an older version for some reason, they would explicitly name it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palmerston 20170714.jpg

This image is from the Twitter account @DiploMog, and is licensed with the {{Cc-by-2.0}} - while there is no evidence it was released under this licence - and also the {{FCO}} template (the {{OGL}} licence), but this template has a notice that the file is from the FCO's Flickr stream, and that the "permission only extends to content provided by the FCO" - again, there is no evidence that this is from the FCO. Is this file allowed on Commons? Seagull123 (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not I understand why you doubt the license provided by an official Twitter account belonging to FCO? Do you have any specific reason for this? Ruslik (talk) 19:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruslik0: The @DiploMog account doesn't say anywhere that it is from the FCO, and while it can be implied, it does not explicitly state it. Furthermore, it doesn't say anywhere on the tweet or Twitter account that the photo is licensed under the {{Cc-by-2.0}} license, so I personally can't see any evidence the copyright owner has licensed as such. Also, the {{FCO}} template says it is only for files from this precise Flickr stream - which the photo is not. Seagull123 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry: "Official account of the @foreignoffice Chief Mouser and former resident of @BDCH. Supporting them through". I took it directly from the their twitter page. Ruslik (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean exactly? I thought that since it doesn't say anywhere on the tweet or Twitter account explicitly that it was licensed under the licenses on the file page ({{Cc-by-2.0}} and {{OGL}}), then there was a problem. And, as far as I can see, just because that is the Twitter bio, doesn't mean it is necessarily an official FCO account, and also, the {{FCO}} template "only extends to content provided by the FCO" Flickr stream - of which I can see no evidence of this being true, and I can see no evidence of the {{Cc-by-2.0}} licence being true either. I may be wrong though. Seagull123 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(@Ruslik0: - pinging Ruslik) Seagull123 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mr CE de Wet Founder Headmaster Fairbairn College.jpg

While the photo is almost certainly the "own work" of the uploader, I'm not sure if the same can be of the underlying picture itself. This looks like a ohoto of another picture/photograph hanging on a wall, but en:Fairbairn College is located in South Africa and COM:FOP#South Africa says that there's no freedom of panorama in the country. This seems to mean that the copyright status of the underlying work also needs to be taken into account. Can Commons accept this file as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the underlying picture itself is out of copyrighted or freely licensed, my guess is that the photo will have to be deleted. (This is assuming that FOP depends on the location where a work was photographed (such as South Africa in this case) as opposed to the country of origin for the depicted work.) --Gazebo (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look Gazebo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agência Brasil --> license changed (again): and now?

Posted on Portuguese forum on 23.07.2017 --> no reaction

{{Agência Brasil}} is a quite popular license template enabling the upload of actual photos from Brazilian politics & society to Commons. Unfortunately, the license has changed to something which seems to be NOT compatible with COM:L. Details at Template talk:Agência Brasil#Edit request: CC BY 3.0 BR is gone, only non-commercial use/reproduction is allowed now.

I need a 2nd/3rd/4th opinion about the cited changes and a "How-To"-guide for:

  • to adapt/edit the template for preventing further uploads due to the license change
  • delete related uploads

Btw: the Flickr stream of Agência Brasil is – so far – not affected. Gunnex (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnex: which files are the 'related uploads'? Regarding files that were uploaded prior to the license change, we can probably keep them. Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. I guess you are referring to images that have been uploaded since the date of the change? seb26 (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Seb26: In my understanding only the files which were produced (taken) by Agência Brasil since 24.02.2017. Older images, even uploaded after 24.02.2017, are not affected since they were originally published under a CC license which (as you mentioned) is non-revocable. Gunnex (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a list of affected files? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the template is used in overall 10,000+ files. --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created a provisional maintance category via Category:Agência Brasil related uploads affected by license change. Currently, I don't know how to retrieve related files --> probadly the best way will be a query via = making a list of all uploads since 24 February 2017 using {{Agência Brasil}}. Additional, maybe also only based on the source link --> just to make it sure. Based on the parameters of the source link, which is [currently] in most of the cases configured with year/month (like we can filter/exclude files from the list and analyze the rest... Gunnex (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But more urgently is an update of {{Agência Brasil}} in multiple languages, preventing further affected uploads. The template is – btw – still protected... I can try Portuguese, German and English, but for the rest... And the wording will probadly confuse the uploaders. Any suggestions? Gunnex (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the following:
This photograph was produced and published by Agência Brasil, a public Brazilian news agency, before 23 February 2017.
Until 23 February 2017 their website states: "Todo o conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil exceto quando especificado em contrário e nos conteúdos replicados de outras fontes." (English translation: All content on this website is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Brazil License unless specified otherwise and content replicated from other sources.)
This license is not valid for content that was published at the Agência Brasil website after 23 February 2017.
Dieses Foto wurde von der Agência Brasil, einer öffentlichen brasilianischen Nachrichtenagentur, erstellt und vor dem 23.02.2017 veröffentlicht.
Deren Webseite besagte bis zum 23.02.2017: „Todo o conteúdo deste site está publicado sob a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 3.0 Brasil exceto quando especificado em contrário e nos conteúdos replicados de outras fontes.“
(Deutsche Übersetzung: Alle Inhalte dieser Webseite wurden unter der Creative-Commons-Lizenz „Namensnennung 3.0 Brasilien“ veröffentlicht, sofern nicht anders angegeben und Inhalte aus anderen Quellen kopiert wurden.)
Diese Lizenz gilt nicht für Fotos, die nach dem 23.02.2017 auf der Webseite von Agência Brasil veröffentlicht wurden.
De728631 (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Danke/thx @De728631: --> unfortunately we have to limit the text more. Just a quick example: was published today, showing a photo with credits "Arquivo/Agência Brasil" / archive Agência Brasil. Per URL most likely already published in 2013 (last modified in 2014) and republished e.g. in 2015 via So, the emphasis of the new text should NOT be placed on "published" but on produced (taken)... I already know that in certain cases it will be difficult in the future to distinct between these dates but... well... Gunnex (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found the original file (the above file was cropped): (exif available: work by "Marcelo Camargo/Agência Brasil") , embedded in several news articles from Agência Brasil... Gunnex (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gunnex, I recommend using instead, under "page properties" it has a field that lets you filter by page creation date. I might look at creating a petscan query later but suggesting this for you anyway. seb26 (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thx @Seb26: --> is completely new for me but looks interesting. "(...) I might look at creating a petscan query later (...) --> that would be great ;-). Gunnex (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1st try via --> [405 hits] based on related template & category. Note, that with this query also Flickr files (which are [mostly] ok) are listed... tagging them with above mentioned Category:Agência Brasil related uploads affected by license change for further [mass DR] treatment... My Petscan is ok or could be improved? What about images sourced with Agência Brasil but NOT using the related template? Gunnex (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done per Category:Agência Brasil related uploads affected by license change: from 405 files listed by, 326 files are affected. Gunnex (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]