Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/08

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search copyright notice is a Persian/Iranian website that publishes good-quality content on Husayn ibn Ali. Photos are published here. Here are some nice photos about Ta'zieh theater.

I want to know if the copyright notice of the website is valid or not. It reads "All content by Karbobala is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Based on a work at Zeitoon Institute" which is all good. However, the Persian translation (the above line) is a bit odd. It translates to "All rights belong to Zeitoon Institute and you are allowed to use the content under a CC BY 4.0 license if you cite the source". As far as I know, when you choose a CC license, some rights are reserved, not all rights. And it should also be noted that they have used "belong to" rather than "reserve".

COM:CONSENT reads "I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen." So I am sure that you can own the copyright of a work and at the same time publish it under a free license.

But is it possible to say "all rights belong to John Smith" and yet publish the content under a CC license? I was about to contact them and ask about their license, but I thought it might be a better idea to consult with fellow Commoners first. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it's perfectly sensible to say that all rights belong to a person, but that that person has licensed some uses of the work. One of the rights that they have is precisely the right to grant such licences. Creative Commons uses "some rights reserved" as a slogan, but as far as I can tell it doesn't really mean anything legally. --bjh21 (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Licensing for later-published image from older non-public collection

File:Matt Robinson 1970.JPG is cropped from a photograph from 1970. That original photo contains a year and corporate author but not the magic word "copyright" (or related symbol), which is why it was tagged as {{PD-US-no notice}}. However, the photo itself is apparently from a non-public collection (the corporate library/archive of The Baltimore Sun) and the whole image (this photo object) was only released for sale to the general public well after 1977. In 1970, The Sun used this image in nearly complete form (minimal cropping of background margins) and that printing does have a proper copyright notice in the newspaper. What is considered the "publication" event? The creation of the full-image archive print, running nearly the full image in a newspaper, or the release of the whole photo original? DMacks (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/SAIN audio files

This is a deletion request for 3,636 files, which represents about half of the audio clips of Welsh music released as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} by the record company Sain and uploaded by the National Library of Wales. The DR is on the basis that Sain now think that this music is not public domain, not because of any issue of performers' copyright.

I have analysed about a quarter of these files and have identified 306 of them that can probably be kept. Please review my work so far - is it worth continuing with this? Verbcatcher (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am asking here because I have spent considerable time and effort reviewing these files, and I have only looked at about a quarter of them. I don't want to spend any more time on this if the files are going to be deleted on the basis of the request from the record company or because of doubts about whether the record company have acquired the necessary rights from the performers. So please have a look a a few of these files and give me some feedback. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trump baby balloon

I see all of the photo of Trump baby balloon was deleted. Is that we really never have one photo for it, what a pity. -- 07:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This kind of photo is considered as derivative works. However, the Trump baby balloon didn't meet the criteria of FoP in UK. They are neither
  1. permanently situated in a public place, nor
  2. in premises open to the public.
Therefore, image consist of the Trump baby balloon must have the permission of the creator (Matt Bonner) of the Trump baby balloon, or they are considered as de minimis, regards. --B dash (talk) 07:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Village pump#Collective works

On the Village Pump, there's a discussion about Collective works, including a claim that in most places, once a collective work has entered the public domain after 70 years, the work can be reprinted by anyone, no matter the lifespan of its authors. Anyone familiar with the legal issues here?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works created for the US Government?

I know that works created by the US government cannot be copyrighted, and are tagged using the {{PD-USGov}} family of tags. What about works created for the US government, which don't otherwise include a specific copyright in the work itself?

I'm interested in getting the Apollo Mission Simulator instruction manuals into WikiSource, but I wasn't sure if they fall under the {{PD-USGov}} umbrella since they're technically made by a non-public entity (the manufacturers of the simulator, I presume.) The files can be found here on (Link is to volume 1; volume 2 can be navigated to via that page as well.)

Is this file OK to upload to Commons? How would I go about ascertaining the actual copyright status of it?

Thanks, Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mukkakukaku: PD-USGov is strictly for a "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties", so I don't think these qualify. If the date of first publication was before 1978, it would be {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Another possibility could be {{PD-US-1978-89}}. However, it would need to be shown that they were published by someone authorized to do so. Otherwise the unauthorized publication and all copies would be considered infringement rather than "publication". Guanaco (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's a manual, and it was in use during the NASA Apollo program; does publication need to be through some sort of "publishing house" or is the dissemination of the document by the authoring entity sufficient? The date on it is July 1965, so if anything it would be {{PD-US-no-notice}} rather than the 78/89 variant. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 06:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Publication: "In the United States, publication is defined as: '... The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of people for purposes of further distribution, ...'" So {{PD-US-no-notice}} is just fine since American Aviation obviously offered (or rather sold) this to NASA. De728631 (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yeah do a copyright search at LOC [1] and we do not know if the contract terms included copyright transfer. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this allowed?

Are these pictures allowed to be uploaded onto Commons? Jesstan01 (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jesstan01: no, they're licensed CC BY-NC-ND, as shown by the icon towards the bottom of the page. See COM:WHERE#Tistory for more info on evaluating pictures found on Tistory. clpo13(talk) 20:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:MyTV LOGO.jpg

This might be simple enough for {{PD-textlogo}}, but I'm not sure about South Africa's TOO; if it's like COM:TOO#United Kingdom, this would mostly likely not be PD. At the same time, I can't find where it's been released as licensed anywhere on So, I don't think it can be kept per COM:PCP if it's not truly PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A .zip with 101 files for Wikimedia Commons

I have received a .zip 🤐 file containing 101 images from Scott Semans who uses this license for his website, the images were all hosted there once on on this page but that now returns a 404 Error message. Can I create a separate template for the content from the website and one for the content from the .zip file and then have Scott Semans confirm that he is the author and that he releases the images with the aforementioned Creative Commons license?

I am not sure if I should create a separate template and then add {{Subst:OP}} to it and then have it confirmed through the OTRS. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an archived version of his website but it doesn't show any licensing, so this should really go through OTRS. I don't think you'll need a separate template, but a hidden category like Category:Photographs by Scott Semans would be a good idea. Mr. Semans may then refer to the content of this category in the confirmation email. You can upload the images with {{OP}} but with the current OTRS backlog I would expect them to be deleted after some time and go through OTRS undeletion when the mail has been processed. De728631 (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:William James b1842c.jpg

The Source link for File:William James b1842c.jpg was dead, so I found a new one.

Problem: the new source doesn't include (or link to) a text stating the image is in the public domain. Instead, it links to a page with the following text:

Harvard Library Image Delivery Service Copyright Statement

This material is owned, held, or licensed by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. It is being provided solely for the purpose of teaching or individual research. Any other use, including commercial reuse, mounting on other systems, or other forms of redistribution requires permission of the appropriate office of Harvard University.

Does that mean we can't use the image anymore?

More details at File talk:William James b1842c.jpg#License.

I don't know much about licensing and I'm not very active on commonswiki, so I probably can't contribute much else to the discussion. I just wanted to let others know that there's a potential problem.

Chrisahn (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When something has been validly licensed by its copyright holder we can continue rely on that licence, even if it is subsequently released with a different licence. The Commons:License review system is can be used to capture the original license declaration, and sometimes we can validate an old license in an archived copy of the website. In spite of Harvard's new licence, this image is almost certainly public domain and we can keep it as such. We might need to change the text "This is a media file that Houghton Library believes to be in the public domain of the United States" if the library is no longer saying this. Also, the 'source' field of the file page should be where the file came from, not where it is to be found now. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, cool. Thanks! Chrisahn (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
see also Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification needed on 3D models' "Own work" licenses

License templates in question: {{3dpatent|ownwork}} and {{3dpatent}}

Wikimedia Foundation
The uploader of this file has agreed to the Wikimedia Foundation 3D patent license: This file and any 3D objects depicted in the file are both my own work. I hereby grant to each user, maker, or distributor of the object depicted in the file a worldwide, royalty-free, fully-paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable and perpetual license at no additional cost under any patent or patent application I own now or in the future, to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and distribute this file and any 3D objects depicted in the file that would otherwise infringe any claims of any patents I hold now or in the future.

Please note that in the event of any differences in meaning or interpretation between the original English version of this license and a translation, the original English version takes precedence.
Wikimedia Foundation
The uploader of this file has agreed to the following patent warranty: Use of this file and any objects depicted in the file will not knowingly or recklessly infringe any patents.

What does this phrase mean in the first template?

"This file and any 3D objects depicted in the file are both my own work."

For example, this model of the Falcon 9 was made in Blender by User:Fac-tory-o, but is about the Falcon 9 rocket made by SpaceX. Is the file depicting the 3D model of the rocket, or the rocket itself? Should the file license be {{3dpatent|ownwork}} or simply {{3dpatent}}? Is there a template for things not owned but modeled by the user?

Thanks, XYZtSpace (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The file is a 3D model of the rocket, it is depicting the rocket and is derivative work of the design of the rocket. This is probably allowable on Commons, by extension from Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Vehicles. Unless the uploader designed the rocket then {{3dpatent|ownwork}} is inappropriate. However, requiring the uploader to state {{3dpatent}} seems inappropriate – we don't have an equivalent declaration on photographs of the rocket. I am not experienced in this area, but we may need a template for models of uncopyrightable objects. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is possible for a useful uncopyrightable object to be protected by patent rights. These templates were created by the WMF (see the file history) when they added support for uploading 3D files. In particular, it is the position of WMF that "Requiring users to waive, or provide licenses to, patent rights or otherwise asking users to only upload 3D files that are not patent-encumbered are necessary steps for 3D files to be fully compatible with free culture principles." For background details, see m:Wikilegal/3D files and 3D printing. With regards to this specific file, I assume the 3D model only encompasses the external appearance of the Space X rocket, not any patentable functional components of the vehicle. (Unless there is something patentable in the external shape of a rocket? Does Space X have patents on the aeronautic shape of their vehicles? I don't know, I am not a rocket scientist). —RP88 (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Street theater

Is it OK to take pictures of street-theater actors while performing and upload them to Wikimedia Commons? Take File:20180512 - Serce Don Juana - Krakowski Teatr Uliczny Scena Kalejdoskop - 9121 DxO.jpg or another picture in Category:Street theatre as an example. Thank you 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@4nn1l2: Yes, but if they are in a certain jurisdiction or two you need consent from the actors to publish your pictures.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: Thank you. I do not understand this part of your response: "a certain jurisdiction or two". What do you mean by "two"?
Additionally, what about indoor theaters? Is there any difference? 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"A certain jurisdiction or two" means that it varies from country to country, i.e. there is more than just one jurisdiction where you need consent and the conditions may be different depending on the country. Indoor theatres are usually even more restrictive because you also need to adhere to their house rules of photography. De728631 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. The concept of personality rights is not an issue. My question is only concerned with copyright and neighboring rights such as performing rights. From your responses, I understand that taking a picture is generally OK, but recording a video would be certainly problematic. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how a video is different from a picture when freedom of panorama applies. De728631 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A dramatic work (performance art) can be shown in a video, but not in a picture. Am I right? 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can use both methods, pictures AND video, when the play is performed outdoors in a public place where freedom of panorama applies. Indoor performances are not ok though without permission from the theatre. De728631 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... as long as the jurisdiction's FOP laws apply to ephemeral art? Are there any such jurisdictions? The vast majority appear to require "permanent" installation in a public place, for some definition of "permanent", or do I misunderstand you? Storkk (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you didn't misunderstand me. The "permanent" requirement is usually limited to the lifetime of the work, which in these cases would by the performance. I also found an analysis for Portuguese FOP law arguing that the copyright exceptions in Portugal are valid for all kinds of works and not just for sculptures and pictures. In the end, though, it all depends on the legislation of the country where said performance takes place. De728631 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@4nn1l2: I think we had a DR or UDR some time back about a photo of a mime in Paris or Rome whose neighboring rights were not secured, and we could not keep the photo.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think "政府網站資料開放宣告" and "網站資料開放宣告" are valid copyrights?

I want to ask you to confirm: Do you think "政府網站資料開放宣告" and "網站資料開放宣告" are valid copyrights?--Kai3952 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can see more details at "File:Poor air quality around Linyuan industrial zone.png" talk page and "File:Kukuan_Hydropower_Plant01.jpg" talk page.--Kai3952 (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kai3952: No, neither licensing policy permits one to "maliciously change", thus there is no blanket allowance of derivative works as required by COM:L, and there is no required allowance of commercial use either. Unless Google Translate translated them incorrectly.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd look it up myself, but I only know "Creative Commons licenses". The problem is that the government shows its copyright on the website by writing this("政府網站資料開放宣告" and "網站資料開放宣告"). Can anyone tell me what kind of "license" they are?--Kai3952 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kai3952: Custom.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are these the same "Government Website Open Information Announcement" license discussed at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/05#Taiwan_Central_Weather_Bureau that resulted in {{GWOIA}}? —RP88 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't trust "{{GWOIA}}" for anything. Because "政府網站資料開放宣告"(or "網站資料開放宣告") is just an agreement of what the uploader should do. To me the problem is still not solved:
  1. May exceed the scope of authorization for "政府網站資料開放宣告"(or "網站資料開放宣告"), how do we know?
  2. If the uploader misinterprets the contents of "政府網站資料開放宣告"(or "網站資料開放宣告"), how do we know?--Kai3952 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploads from specific user may be copyright violations

Several of the uploads of user: Adrian Hernandez are suspicious. At least File:Pectoral Ornament Mixtec.jpg was taken from the Cleveland Museum of Art. Looking at Special:ListFiles/Adrian Hernandez, several of those uploads look like museum photos. In fact, the metadata for File:Motul de San Jose Cylinder Maya Vessel.jpg gives credit to the Dallas Museum of Art. I'll nominate these two for deletion. Xochiztli (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you need to present evidence like this [2]. and rights reserved [3]. and engage with uploader about 3D art, i.e. Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#This_does_not_apply_to_photographs_of_3D_works_of_art. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:FreeOTP Android screenshot.png

Can someone please review (pass or fail) this image? The uploader gave the source of the image but I am not familiar with this specific license. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are 741 other images in Category:License_review_needed, why is this so important? --BevinKacon (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I don't know the uploader and don't know the license at all. Just asked for an opinion BevinKacon, nothing more, since I review images. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let it sit in the category, somebody will reach it, it's only been in there a month.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leoboudv: The software this screenshot depicts is licensed Apache 2.0, so {{Free screenshot}} applies. I added a link to the license text, which was on a separate repository. clpo13(talk) 16:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:RCSD Patch.jpg

It doesn't seem like this can be accepted as licensed because it seems highly unlikely for this to be 100% "own work", especially considering the uploader's history of sometimes claiming the work of others as his own and because of It might be a COM:DW or it might be COM:FAIR, but not sure. I don't believe works of South Carolinan government offices are considered to be PD, and I can't find this particular version of the seal anywhere in Category:South Carolina. Can this be kept as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You nominate the image for deletion. Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Marchjuly and Ruslik0: I have speedy tagged the file, nominated some other files, and reported the uploader to COM:ANB#Fhsig13.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Ruslik and Jeff G. for looking at this. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing licenses

I have a lot of illustrations marked with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} and {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} when they were the defaults here years ago. Can I migrate these over to regular CC BY-SA 3.0 or CC BY-SA 4.0 (minus the GFDL), or am I stuck? Thanks. SharkD  Talk  08:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're not stuck, but I don't think you can drop the GFDL. Updating Creative Commons to 4.0 shouldn't be an issue though. If somehow you really want to get rid of the GFDL, you'd have to move to a license that renders the GFDL redundant. CC0 would certainly do that. I'm not sure if CC BY or BY-SA will. They probably won't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ähem. Sure, CC0 would make GFDL redundant, but also any other CC license. It would mean to relinquish more rights than any CC-BY-xx license. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Túrelio (talk • contribs)
True, you won't need any other license with CC0. So if somehow you really, really want to get rid of GFDL.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The images have source code that I am about to upload to GitHub. What (plain) text should I include with the code in my case? SharkD  Talk  09:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should I add one text file for each license, or put them both in the same file? How should I name the files? Thanks. SharkD  Talk  14:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SharkD: you are the author, correct? You can license them however you want. If you want to upload them to Github with a GPL license, no problem. If you want to upload it to Flickr as CC BY-NC-ND, no problem. If you want to upload your images to your personal webshop and start selling them, no problem. You still own the copyright, you can distribute it in as many places as you want with as many licenses as you want. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not realize I could release the same image in different places using different licenses. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  18:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is interesting is that if you had only offered them as GFDL, then Commons would have migrated them over to CC BY-SA 3.0 per Commons:GFDL 1.3 relicensing criteria. But because you already offered CC BY-SA 3.0 then the GFDL was retained. It is pretty harmless to keep it. Btw, I think someone can use your CC3 images and license the result as CC4 and then someone else could reuse that and licence that work as Free Art. See this page. But I think that only applies to adaptations that create a new work, and doesn't permit you to simply exchange one for the other. -- Colin (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I usually stick to the defaults unless I make a derivative work. So what you see is what was the default option on Commons at some point in the past. SharkD  Talk  17:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Colin: No GFDL licenses were removed in the license migration. CC BY-SA 3.0 was added to GFDL for eligible files. @SharkD: need any help with Help:VisualFileChange? (be careful, powerful tool, and it seems like you haven't used it before, at least not recently) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I haven't uploaded enough images to require a script. SharkD  Talk  17:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Import help

What do you think: [4], he is the photographer? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions Regarding Miniatures Buildings

I would like to uploaded photos I took at Gulliver's Gate, a set of miniatures accessible to the public. Most of the stuff there are replicas of real-life structures, such as the Eiffel Tower, Angkor Wat, Petronas Towers, etcetera. COM:FOP indicates photos of buildings, are permitted in the United States. However, it is unclear to me whether miniatures of buildings are permitted, especially when many of the dioramas are nearly indistinguishable the original, which many are in the public domain. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 22:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not allowed, it's a private collection not in a public place, and needs payment to view. Buildings applies to structures, not models.--BevinKacon (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SpanishSnake: Further to what Bevin wrote, the models are sculptures and not utilitarian articles.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This could get into some copyright edge cases, but best guess no. "Buildings", for FOP and U.S. copyright, are places designed for human occupation. A small model of a building is really not a building anymore. If it is an *exact* scaled down replica, you could make an argument that there is no additional expression in the model and therefore no sculpture copyright. But odds are for most of them there will be details omitted, or small details changed, at the very least, which could create a valid copyright if they are not obvious changes. At that point, photos could be a derivative work. For one example, courts ruled that a close copy of the Statue of Liberty in Las Vegas changed enough to create a new copyright, and the US Post Office infringed it when it used a photo of that replica (instead of the real statue) on one of their stamps. They licensed the photo, but not the statue.[5] It's a difficult area, and impossible to be sure of much. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Dsc 7173 Jpg (106623559).jpeg

I do not see why this image, with a clear Copyright sign on it, is to be accepted on Commons without OTRS? It has been argued that it comes from the web site 500px but I fail to understand that this should be a guarantee of a free licence requiered by Commons. I read the disclaimer on the site and I cannot see that the user surrenders its copyright nor that it is even sure that the upolder on 500px is really the onwer of the copyright.

Pierre cb (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there is an indication of a license at the source, OTRS is not required. CC-licensed materials are still copyrighted (that is how the license is enforced), so a copyright sign is not a problem, in itself. Admittedly, I do not currently see any indication of a license at the source, but perhaps they are always visible to logged-in users. Unless the image was uploaded via a tool which checks licenses, such as the Flickr import bots, it needs a license review though. In such cases you could mark it with {{LicenseReview}}. However, this appears to be done as part of a project to import files from 500px which were licensed freely before Getty Images started an arrangement with them and pulled the licenses (which would also explain why the license is no longer visible). I am not familiar with the details, but presumably that project vetted the licenses correctly at the time, before June 30 this year. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pierre cb: I have no doubt that photographer David Ben David licensed this photo {{Cc-by-3.0}} when he watermarked it and uploaded it to, the team maintained it accurately, the Archive Team downloaded it from, and @Rodrigo.Argenton uploaded it here in good faith. I cropped out 70 rows of pixels that contained the "© david ben david" watermark, and duplicated that information on the file description page. I also tagged it "{{LicenseReview|site=|user=Jeff G.|date=2018-08-05}}" for your peace of mind. This information is all public, so there is no privacy need to hide it in the OTRS system.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but there may be a commons precautionary confidence need. a little © astonishes the naive; how many deletion rationales are "saw it at getty"? minds are set at ease by the opaque unaccountable OTRS. it is not about the uploader doubt, but the marginal deletionist admin doubt. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Commons:500px licensing data and its discussion page for details about this in-progress tool. The import-500px tool will permit the importation of Commons compatible files from 500px (they were saved to by before the license change). The tool verifies the license before permitting an import. You can see the license extracted by the tool by clicking the "(detail page)" link in the file source, which shows the details extracted by the tool, including the license. If you are familiar with HTML and Javascript you can manually verify the license by examining the contents in the archive link. —RP88 (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verifying contents on Tatmadaw-related images

I looked at the images that Okkar2018 uploaded since I thought I saw some familiar ones. Turns out there are similar ones and the user insists that he did the work in taking the photos and gets defensive. Some of the images he has on the commons are just taken from other sources and changed colors from colored to black and white like this.

Is there a reverse image program aside from Google and Yandex that can used to verify is the images are original or not. I'm trying to verify is they are original, although one of them has the watermark of a name on the image... Not sure how to proceed.

File:MA-SOF-1.jpg File:MA-SQUAD-1.jpg File:MA1-MKIII.jpg File:MA3-MKIII.jpg File:MA-INF-3.jpg File:MA-INF-2.jpg File:MA-INF-4.jpg File:MA-INF-1.jpg

Ominae (talk) 06:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why you didn't took the watermark and search at Google?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 16:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tried. Couldn't find a lot of results from the images (links) that I have here. Reverse searches sometimes don't get me the results. But thanks for telling me that Mizzima is a news agency. It helps. Ominae (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deutsche Grammophone/ Google: ‘The Shellac Project’

Any thoughts on the copyright status of historic recordings made available as part of this project:

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some of the original recordings will be public domain due to their age and/or the death dates of the performers. DG say that they have 'restored' these recordings. Would restoration create a new copyright, or is this simply making a more accurate copy of a public domain work? This is similar to asking whether restoration of an old master painting creates a new copyright. It seems unlikely that the cleaning and restoration of the w:en:Mona Lisa in the 1950s created a new copyright – would the same apply the restoration of a public-domain recording? We might have hoped that DG would release these recordings under a free license. This does not appear to be the case for the following historic clips that are labelled '(C) 2018 Deutsche Grammophon GmbH, Berlin'.[6][7] Verbcatcher (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, these likely can't be uploaded to Commons because Commons requires works to be PD in their country of origin and the US, and these will almost certainly not enter the public domain in the US any earlier than 15 February 2067 (see the Sound Recordings section of Hirtle's Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States). —RP88 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-self to CC0

Similar to my previous question, I have several images marked as {{PD-self}}. Can I switch these over to CC0 or am I stuck? SharkD  Talk  08:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, technically not. Your best bet is to dual-license. That said, I relicensed all my former PD contributions as CC0, because as a German citizen, publishing my images in Germany I cannot legally release files into the public domain, while CC0 is a valid license. This gives reusers more safety. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Srittau: why not? Moving from CC0 to PD-self would be a problem (because PD-self is less clear as an irrevocable license), but why wouldn't one be allowed to move from PD-self to CC0? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because CC0 is (technically) stricter than PD. That said, I have no problem with someone doing that for the reason you outlined. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you mean by dual license? Which two licenses? SharkD  Talk  09:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the existing license tag, and add CC0. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is the advantage of having two licenses? Why the need to keep the old one? SharkD  Talk  13:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is anything legally different between them, the old one is still there and documented in case it helps a re-user. For CC0 in particular, I don't *think* it should matter, but courts can do unexpected things sometimes... Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the need to keep PD-self if you have CC0. If one thinks of licence compatibility, surely that's a direction that would be permissible. The latter is a better-written version of the former. I don't understand Srittau's claim that CC0 is stricter than PD-Self. If anything it is just more wordy and thorough about releasing the rights and the licence-fallback. -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Colin: the only thing that seems to stand out in the license is the no warranty disclaimer. So if you create some work and a company decides to use it but it ends up giving their customers seizures, with PD-self they may be able to sue you depending on the laws of the country. With CC0, they can't. Obviously this is just a flaw of PD-self though. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find it hard to imagine a circumstance where the "no warranty" clause would make the slightest difference. Certainly not for seizure inducing works. Perhaps if you drew a map there might be some implied "fit for purpose" but even then I think they'd have to show you deliberately published it with the hope that people would walk off a cliff, or a recipe for children's play dough that was intended to cause skin burns, and then I don't imagine a "no warranty" CC0 get-out-clause would do you any good. Seems more of a reminder that "you got this for free, somewhere on the internet, so don't expect Ordnance Survey or Mary Berry standards". -- Colin (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Directions for children to hop off a cliff - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When dual licensing, do I use one template for both licenses (like the old GFDL and CC dual licenses), or one template for each? SharkD  Talk  01:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Either way works. If a specific combined template doesn't exist, you can use {{Self}} to specify multiple licenses and it will add text to indicate to reusers that they can pick which to use. clpo13(talk) 02:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Hichem09 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads (see his talk page), after being blocked for a month in 2015 for copyvio, have continued for a long time to upload copyrighted photos with false free licence. The last was about Rachid Ghezzal : File:Rachid_Ghezzal.jpg. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been raised at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Hichem09, which is probably the right venue. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spoken GFDL license

Context: I wanted to upload a version of the GFDL license in an image. Before uploading, I checked to make sure I would license it correctly - only to find out the GFDL itself isn't free. I won't upload my version.

File:GFDL (English).ogg (reviewed by @Guanaco: )

I can understand why this file needs to be on Commons and I also believe it shouldn't be deleted. However, the file page currently states "It is believed, however, that the text of the GFDL is freely available for derivative works as long as you do not fraudulently claim your version is the official GFDL.".

There is no proof of that. This is all there is from

"Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

Ironically, the GFDL license text is not licensed as GFDL. There is no good reason for that, Creative Commons license texts are licensed CC0. So the GFDL license text simply isn't free and shouldn't be indicated as free. It'll be a very rare exception as a nonfree file on Commons, but so be it. It wouldn't really be part of the free media repository, it would just be hosted for technical reasons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you're right, there is no evidence that derivatives are permitted. GPL, AGPL, and FAL seem to be the same in this regard. It may call for a specialized license template such as {{Verbatim license text}}. We also have to consider unofficial translations, which can only be published under this non-free license. Guanaco (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A specialized license template sounds like a good idea. Should I create one? For translations I'm a bit confused: "The page containing the translation should have no links except to and We might accept links about other free software packages, but we prefer to avoid them", can Commons comply with that? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some one plz address the files

I'm not sure over the authenticity of the these files:

Can anyone help me with this? Thanks.--Mhhossein talk 10:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These look alright to me. The Qasioun images are watermarked and come from the official YouTube channel of this news outlet. And the PD status of File:Hanover Havaalanı’nda Afrin Kavgası-4.jpg seems also justified since it comes from Voice of America's Turkish channel. The only potential problem could arise if the original videos had been purchased from third parties. De728631 (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mein Banater Land.jpg

Could someone please look into the status of File:Mein Banater Land.jpg? I'm no copyright expert, but it seems obvious that the uploader is not the creator, and User:DCB flagged the file with {{No permission}}. An anonymous editor has now claims to hold the copyright at File talk:Mein Banater Land.jpg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anna Chrony pictures

All (or almost all) of the photos uploaded by Surrealist lover (talk · contribs) are attributed to Anna Chrony with a source of and a license of CC BY-SA 3.0 (except for some of the uploads from 2013, which are CC BY 3.0). At one point, the website did bear a CC BY-SA 3.0 notice, but that permission page also says that the images may not be edited, which contradicts the CC license (unless the license was meant only for the website's text). Additionally, File:Anna Chromy Cloak Of Conscience.jpg has a link to an OTRS ticket, so I wonder if that permission also applies to these other photos or if it was just for that one. I'm of the opinion that the edit restriction invalidates the CC license, which makes these uploads copyright violations, but I'd like some outside opinions before I take any action. clpo13(talk) 17:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The ticket covers these images:
It looks like this was changed as evidence of the permission at some point. But I'm not seeing anywhere where Surrealist lover is supposed to be connected to Webinclusion, who uploaded these OTRS verified images. GMGtalk 17:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, GreenMeansGo. I wondered if there might be a connection based on this edit, but it's probably more likely that Surrealist lover uploaded their photos on the basis of the CC license mentioned above. clpo13(talk) 18:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh derp. I just gave you the link you already linked to. One things for sure, the website today don't give any lip service to CC-BY-SA. I presume we would need another verification, rather than rely on a vague, contradictory, and fleeting CC-BY-SA declaration. I mean, even if it was legit, how to we know that these particular images were present on the website at the same time that this declaration was? GMGtalk 18:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using someone else's image that they've given me permission to use

I uploaded an image, Main-logo-2018hq.png, that a collaborator of mine created and that they have given me permission to use. I included this and the creator's name in my upload form. But I just got a message that Wikipedia suspects I've violated a copyright. How do I prove that I have permission to publish this image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZPonterio (talk • contribs) 14:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey ZPonterio. Normally, the creator would need to give legal permission to license the image for free public use, and not just for use on this site. However, in this instance the logo consists only of text and geometric shapes, and so falls below the threshold for originality in the United States. I have updated the file information to reflect this. GMGtalk 14:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benny Hill Image

Can I use this picture for Benny Hill's Wikipedia page? Currently his photo is of a wax statue. Here is an actual photo. Stapmoshun (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could upload this locally at the English Wikipedia with a fair use rationale: en:Template:Non-free use rationale biog. For the licensing, you would then select "Historically significant fair use". Anyhow, please don't upload it at Commons. The photo can be found all over the web and it looks recent enough to by copyrighted and non-free. De728631 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this should not be uploaded to Commons. For the 'fair use' rules on English Wikipedia please see w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. I suspect that this image would not pass the no free equivalent criterion, as the current free image in the article is a reasonably good likeness. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the Commons image is more that sufficient for primary identification purposes per en:WP:FREER which is why I've tagged the non-free uploaded locally to Wikipedia for speedy deletion per en:WP:F7. There may actually be other PD/free images of Hill floating around somewhere as well, including some never marked with a copyright notice or whose copyright wasn't renewed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
welcome to the free hypocrisy, where "free" photos of wax sculptures prevent higher quality photos of dead people. "There may actually be other PD/free images of Hill floating around somewhere" = dream on. produce it, or stop the empty speculation. it is an elevation of ideology over results. how many times are you going to harm the quality of the encyclopedia to make a philosophical point? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you disagree with the claim of replaceable fair use added to the local non-free file, you can always dispute the template if you like. Just follow the instructions in the CSD template added to the file explain how deleting the image is going to be harmful to the encyclopedia. Perhaps the admin reviewing the tag will decide that more discussion is needed and move things to en:WP:FFD. Anyway, if you're editing on Commons, you won't need to create a new account to edit on Wikipedia; you can just use the same one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
maybe we need to delete the bizarre image of a wax sculpture. doubt the release from the wax sculptor. i have no confidence in english NFCC determinations, it is a triumph of ideology over the "sum of all knowledge", how it could be consider encyclopedic is farcical, but that is not on their check-list. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you feel the wax sculpture photo needs to go, tag it accordingly or start a DR. If you feel Wikipedia's policy on non-free content use needs to be revised, start a discussion at en:WT:NFCC or en:WP:VPP. Perhaps you can make a convincing case that the "checklist" you refer to needs to be changed for the better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
let all the PRP deletionists gather around, it is all about justifying the seat of the pants not standard of practice. if you have confidence in the english process that produced the checklist, you change it. convincing arguments have nothing to do with it. " that the goal was to effectively discourage the use of any fair-use media by making it impractical and difficult to justify doing so even where the file in question easily met the criteria" (i.e. triumph of rhetoric over substance) Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stapmoshun, Clindberg, and Marchjuly: It's quite possible [8] has expired Crown copyright. The problem is I can't find confirmation it is in fact a government work. If it is, it can be uploaded as {{PD-UKGov}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi guys. Sorry if I've started quite a ruckus or an argument on here. I'm still new to editing Wikipedia and such, but I have a strong feeling against having a wax statue being Benny Hill's image on his article here. I see the image that Marchjuly has put here, and it is really a terrific image. I wish there was a speedy way to see whether a copyright status on an image has expired or not, it's really quite problematic trying to avoid any trouble. Thanks everyone, also, I was a little afraid when I got those warnings on the file I had uploaded so I deleted it. Stapmoshun (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stapmoshun: what image are you referring to? If you meant the link I just gave (but I'm not Marchjuly), you can try yourself to figure out the origin of the image. might help. (I found mostly pinterest crap, but maybe I overlooked something) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: WHOOPS, sorry 'bout the miscredit there. You're right, I'm talking about the image YOU put up, not Marchjuly. Haha, sorry about that. I'll give the reverse image lookup from Google a try, and see if it is eligible for the {{PD-UKGov}} you mentioned. One question, if you know the answer to this: this UK exception, does it apply only to the Wikipedia editors who live in the UK, or is it referring to the subjects of the picture, in this case Benny Hill, it would apply because he's English? Thanks a lot. Stapmoshun (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the fact you have to use google image in the perverse interaction of english and commons deletions, with no clear history of which image got deleted where why, is instructive. it is all about the automated process, and not about tracking and accounting for admin action. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stapmoshun: probably better ignore Slowking4 here.. Your question about {{PD-UKGov}}: it applies to works with expired copyright from the UK government. For photographs, it applies to those taken prior to 1 June 1957. It applies worldwide. The subjects don't matter, if the UK government takes photos of Americans or Swedes nothing changes. Since Benny Hill was in the British army and looks quite young on the photo, it seems likely the photo was taken by an army photographer. But it might have been taken by a friend or family member. If very similar photos exist of other people in the British army, that would likely be sufficient proof as well. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding link to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benny Hill WWII.jpg for reference. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not out of copyright after all?

Moved from Commons:Help desk: -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 05:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:John Doubleday with the Portland Vase.jpg dates from around 1845, but per a few discussions (most notably at FAC), it seems that it may still be under copyright in the United States (but not in the UK, its country of origin), as the earliest definitive publication is from 1989.

First question: Is that analysis correct?

Second question: If yes, what is the next step? If the file has to be deleted from Commons, how does one do that while preserving the image on Wikipedia (which, as the only known photograph of Doubleday, will go under a fair use tag)? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Usernameunique,
Just a quick answer:
I don't know how they get to this, but:
Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad
Date of Publication Conditions Copyright Term in the United States
Before 1923 None In the public domain
Their link
So it's under a public domain.

And would be better for the next time you use Village pump/Copyright to specifically discussions about licenses, and this should be the our priority to discuss about copyright status around a photo, not at WP, we have more people dealing with copyright of photos and other medias, as a result we could have a more accurate answer and less time spent.
You can try for this case the Village Pump/Copyright, but this is very straight forward to me - it's at Public Domain, period.
If you want can change the actual license to {{PD-1923}} + {{PD-UK-unknown}} (Hirtle chart yes, we do have this chart here with the correct template) + (Copyright tags#United Kingdom)
Not necessary.
Just to you know, at 1989 this image could be already at public domain, let's make some math, okay?
1989-70= 1919
So, if the author died until 1919 this image would be under public domain
1919-1845 = 74, so after the photo the author could leave 74 years more that at 1989 the image stills under PD.
Let me include a 20 years to the photographer, a very young and bold photographer. This guy should have died at 95 years old to this picture not be under a free license at 1989.
Being a PD photo, we don't need (in some countries) to attribute the author. That could be a reason to not have the author of the photo at the book.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 05:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rodrigo.Argenton, from what I could gather of what Nikkimaria and Stefan2 were suggesting, this photo would be in the public domain in the UK (due to life+70), but was placed under copyright in the US by the 1989 publication. Do you disagree with this? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Mathematics that I did was to say to you that the publication at 1989 do not matters, the image was already at public domain.
Or this dude is a Methuselah

Why didn't you copy the whole thread from Help Desk?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 05:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{PD-1923}} requires pre-1923 publication, which is not known to have happened in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
see unpublished, "Other works: 120 years from creation" i find this misuse of the publication rules tenditious. worse than Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices/2014#Hermann Herzog, and i do not think you have a consensus here. as a threshold matter, we are not going to search the publication of each old photograph: it is an impossible standard, that no institution would implement as a standard of practice. rather we will spend our time investigating those cases with a real risk of being in copyright in the US, such as orphans with no renewals.
"photograph, which has never previously been made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) and which was taken more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1948); or
A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1948)" Template:PD-UK-unknown Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works this old are complex and hairy; they've generally fell into the common law public domain, even if there's complexities with the black letter law. Given that the photographer is unknown, I'd say it wasn't "published" in a legal sense in 1989; that could only have been done with permission of the copyright holder, who was unknown. Which would have meant that it certainly fell into the public domain in the US in 2002.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for updating the license tag, Slowking4. Is another tag, i.e., a US-specific one, needed as well? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well you could change PD-1923 to PD-US, but it is either publication pre-1923 or creation over 120 years ago. does not matter. template verbiage does not reflect hirtle \o/ we have literally hundreds of thousands of berne images here without a US license. look forward to this person clearing that backlog, since they seem to want to make an issue of it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this work derivative enough to be in the public domain?

On the page "Chinese Pavilion Open Work Charm" (Gary Ashkenazy / גארי אשכנזי (Primaltrek – a journey through Chinese culture).) or as a bare URL there is an image of a Chinese open-work charm which is almost identical to the image found at File:1900 Book Prospectus Flier on Chinese Openwork Amulet Coins.jpg which was created by H.A. Ramsden (who died during World War II), now I have a copy of H.A. Ramsden's book about Chinese open-work charms and I can find the exact same image in it, only it looks a bit browner than the one from PrinalTrek, can I import the Primaltrek image as a public domain work as it derivative from H.A. Ramsden's illustration or is the white background original enough to make it a separate work? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I could find it's too derivative to be copyrighted. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is Google trolling? is this acceptable?

There is a book in the public domain which I found on Box here, however it is plastered with "for personal use only" and things like "Copyright © Google" even though the book is fully in the public domain, as these copyright © claims are wholly nonsensical this book actually is free enough to be on Wikimedia Commons, however literally every page claims that Google owns the copyright © to this book and that commercial use is not allowed (despite the fact that no court would ever rule in Google's favour). Would it be acceptable to upload this file 📁 to Wikimedia Commons? (as I can't find any other version online.) --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, There is a better copy here: [9]. Please note that it was published in France, so the date of publication is not sufficient. The author has to be dead for more than 70 years. The National Library of France has several copies: [10], [11]. There is also a 1983 reprint ([12]), and it is quite possible than Google claims a copyright because it is a scan of the reprint (which is nonsense). Hathitrust says he was born in 1851, so we can safely assume than he died before 1947. So OK for me. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much 😊. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
no, more like institutional laziness. google is the one who got sued by authors guild. getty is the one who is trolling. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Siri reply

Siri answers 'what is the gender of an angel?'.jpg

Please see File:Siri answers 'what is the gender of an angel?'.jpg. Do I need to obscure the "starburst" icon that precedes the word "knowledge"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say it's Commons:De minimis, although it's a subjective area. Category:Siri is a mountain in Pakistan, by the way. --ghouston (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Common question

This is probably a common question. Sorry if I ask yet again. But, is a scan of a really old document copyrighted? Or, is it in the public domain like the original document? Can I upload a scan of an old document made by somebody else without asking permission? Thanks. SharkD  Talk  01:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image is from here. The document itself is from 1913. SharkD  Talk  02:04, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the original document is public domain and the scan is a simple mechanical reproduction of it then the scan is also public domain, see Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Smithsonian Libraries seems to be the ultimate source of the images. Can I upload the whole PDF? How do I display only one page of a PDF? SharkD  Talk  03:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can upload the whole PDF (assuming that it is public domain), but if you want individual images for use on Wikipedia then these will need to be separated. You could probably do this with a PDF editor, but I would just copy-and-paste each image into an image editor: display the image on your computer, copy the displayed image (Alt-PrintScreen on Windows), paste it into an image editor such as Microsoft Paint, then crop and save the image. It helps to have big screen as you get a higher-resolution result. This is crude but it works. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Maybe I will request single page selection as a new MediaWiki feature. SharkD  Talk  04:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
might want to go to internet archive, and upload to commons as multipage book on commons, IAuploader,[13] - oops, there you go File:Atlas of the Munsell color system.djvu. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For more suggestions of how to extract images from PDF files (including how to do it losslessly), see Commons:Extracting images from PDF. --bjh21 (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make a new copyright tag

Can someone make a new copyright tag on the Seychelles News Agency? The licences are shown on here. The logo itself is PD-text. The pictures on the website are mainly used used to illustrate articles about Seychelles. Thanks.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have uploaded several images from this source. As well are pictures of the Seychelles it is a useful source of portraits of visiting dignitaries. The applicable licence is shown under each photograph on this site. No new tags are needed, use the following:
  • Copyright All Rights Reserved / Copy, distribute, and display the copyrighted work - only if given permission by the author or agency. – Not acceptable on Wikimedia commons
  • Creative Commons 4.0
    • Attribution CC BY - use {{Cc-by-4.0}}
    • Attribution-ShareAlike CC BY-SA - use {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}
    • Attribution-NoDerivs CC BY-ND – Not acceptable on Wikimedia commons
    • Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC – Not acceptable on Wikimedia commons
    • Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs CC BY-NC-ND – Not acceptable on Wikimedia commons
Please also copy the name of the photographer and tag uploads with {{LicenseReview}} to allow the licence to be recorded, in case it changes on the website.
Verbcatcher (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked the website. I agree with Verbcatcher. Great opportunity to get content from en:Seychelles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canadian field naturalist

Just verifying, this published by the Canadian field naturalist in 1998 is now open access, right? All the images used are okay for upload under CC-BY 4.0? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you think so? Ruslik (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you are confusing an open access journal and a free licence. Open access journals do not charge to read the papers published in them. Some of them may use some sort of a free licence. There are many that use non-free licences, or even do not claim any licence simply allowing allowing people to read those articles at this time. I looked at the paper and found no mention of any licencing terms and also was unable to find such on the website itself. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 18:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image of commemorative coin from US Mint fair use?

I would like to add images of the obverse and reverse images of the coin in question for the entry on the Booker T. Washington Memorial half dollar, but I'm having a hard time figuring out if the images on the US Mint website are fair use.

EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EponineBunnyKickQueen, being legal U.S. tender and authorized in public law, I would assume that {{PD-USGov-money}} would apply. Even if it didn't, however, Commons does not accept fair use material. Huntster (t @ c) 21:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, PD-USGov licenses apply to works of the Federal government itself. They do not apply when a third-party transfers copyright to the federal government, as is the case with certain commemorative coins (see Commons:Currency#United_States and and indeed with this coin, whose author is Isaac Scott Hathaway, not a federal employee. There are also two copyrights: 1) the coin itself and 2) the photo thereof. Even if the coin were free (it isn't, at least by virtue of authorship - publication date and compliance with formalities may be relevant), the photograph isn't free (the US Mint has a unique structure, like the US Post Office, which is why you see "© 2018 United States Mint All Rights Reserved" on its page; you do not see such a notice on "typical" federal sites.) Эlcobbola talk 21:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Huntster and elcobbola. I've entered a photo request for the coin. EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elcobbola, as that's the case, I'd guess that the U.S. coin categories are probably packed with violations. This little corner of copyright is horribly tangled. Huntster (t @ c) 10:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elcobbola, I'm unaware of any special exemption of PD-USGov to the US Mint. They are part of the Treasury Department, completely unlike the US Post Office. They most certainly have trademarks, and there are some special insignia-type laws around some of their stuff, but in general I don't believe their stuff is copyrighted (if done by employees, which are federal employees). They can own copyrights transferred to them, true, and many coin designs are just licensed, which may explain the copyright notice on their web page -- but at no point does their terms of use page claim copyrights over their own works. However, if that coin was put out in 1946, it would have also needed a copyright notice and, if it had that (doesn't look like it), a renewal. If the coin is PD due to lack of notice and/or renewal, and the photo was taken by a US Mint employee, it should be fine. The only problem I can think of is if there was a (published and renewed) original that the coin design is still derivative of. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand this comment. I never said the US Mint gets a "special exemption." I never said the US Mint "claim[s] copyright over their own works." I made no comment about trademarks. I explicitly noted "publication date and compliance with formalities may be relevant." Unique structure could perhaps have been better phrased as practice/warrant/circumstance--they deal commonly in works created non-federal entities and thus no work should be assumed to be federal by its mere appearance on a US Mint site ceteris paribus (thus the need to disclaim when other federal sites do not, and the mint agrees with me - "you should not assume anything on this Web site is necessarily in the public domain.") I very clearly began my comment with "PD-USGov licenses apply to works of the Federal government itself", which does not consider and would not change by structure; I, again, have no idea what you think you are responding to. Эlcobbola talk 19:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You were comparing them to the US Post Office, who does own the copyright to works done by their employees, and the Mint, which does not -- I guess that was my immediate reaction. You also stated that the photograph portion of the copyright would also not be free, but presuming that was done by a mint employee, the photo should be PD-USGov. You explicitly said the photograph isn't free and gave as a reason the mint was like the post office in that regard, but there is no valid comparison on that score, I don't think. The only issue would be the copyright on the original design by Hathaway, which is indeed a potential issue, but that would appear to have not complied with formalities. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, like the post office in that "they deal commonly in works created non-federal entities and thus no work should be assumed to be federal by its mere appearance on [their] site". The US Mint says "you should not assume anything on this Web site is necessarily in the public domain" and has a general "All Rights Reserved" notice. Unless you have evidence the photo was taken by a federal employee, it is not free by our standards. Эlcobbola talk 20:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I would just disagree on that point then. I would have no problem making an assumption that the basic photos were done by their employees, and are OK. I would need some evidence that there was some special commission that would make them copyrightable. AS the notes to the law says, it can be assumed that, where a Government agency commissions a work for its own use merely as an alternative to having one of its own employees prepare the work, the right to secure a private copyright would be withheld. Photos like that would fall under that type of work, if not actually done by employees. The coin design would be where any issues could come in, but doubt that is a problem in this case due to formalities. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It would be helpful to have additional input on this question at the Help Desk. Additionally, if allowed, should we consider creating a template specifically for colorization of public domain black and white images? GMGtalk 16:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The U.S. Copyright Office was reluctant to have any copyrights based on color choice. When it came to colorizing an entire film though, a court did rule that was copyrightable, but I believe they said they would not register a colorization copyright on just a few frames (which would presumably also mean a single image). However, I do wonder if something like that got into a court case -- judges may decide differently, depending on how it was done. Anything done by algorithm should not be a problem, but if done by hand, it would depend on country, and possibly be quite variable. I would probably tend to just upload the original black and white, unless we also have a license for the colorization. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about pic from Open-i service of the National Library of Medicine

Hello, am I permitted to upload that pic to WIKIMEDIA COMMONS?? You can see that there is a link in this page to a license. It's seems that they allow to share, even for commercial purposes, but I want to be sure. Thank you, מתן י (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the licence specified is allowed on Commons as Template:Cc-by-3.0. Thincat (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But please when you uploading the file add {{LicenseReview}} below the license. -- Geagea (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An American goes to Sweden..

I got this question from another user and it left me slightly puzzled.

An American illustrator (1850-1951) creates some illustrations for a Swedish book by a Swedish book author (1858-1940) that was published in 1907. It is unknown if the illustrations were a work for hire, for the sake of argument, let's assume they weren't.

US copyright has expired (PD-1923), no question about that. The copyright for the text expired in 1940+71=2011. No question. The issue is the illustrator. Died in 1951, so if they had been Swedish the illustrations would clearly expire in 1951+71=2022. But they weren't, it was an American. But the book was Swedish.

Now, does Commons consider the source country to be Sweden? Would this Swedish copyright, if it exists, even be enforceable for the American heirs of the illustrator? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Country of origin is country of first publication, so that would be Sweden. Authors could absolutely publish works in other countries to get better/different protection. They would not be subject to the URAA (unless the author actually was living in Sweden), but that is moot here. Sweden would use 70pma, and any country using the rule of the shorter term would compare against Sweden's term. Work for hire is also moot. The illustrations can be uploaded to en-wiki as PD-1923, but not to Commons until 2022. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: thanks! Just out of curiosity: if they had been work for hire, would the copyright for the illustrations have expired in 2011? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think Sweden has any different terms for work for hire do they? In general for the EU, it goes by the human author's lifetime, regardless of who owns the copyright. The text expired in 2011, and the illustrations will expire in 2022. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can these images be uploaded to the commons?

location of images:

By my reckoning these five illustrations are in public domain, but I would really appreciate a person knowledgeable in copyright confirming this. I cannot find a death date for Ms. Cohen.

The images are by illustrator Ellen Gertrude Cohen, created in 1891 and appear to be published in Britain in that year, but it is unclear of the publication. They are on a site that implies copyright, but they are not marked. May I upload all five images to the commons? If so, which tag? "in public domain in U.S."?

Thanks for taking a look. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WomenArtistUpdates: COM:WORSTCASE being an actually useful essay? Who knew! Try {{PD-old-assumed}} combined with {{PD-1923}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
freebmd gives a match for an Ellen Gertrude Cohen as born in December 1860 -- seems more likely than 1846. There is an erroneous birth date of 1876 out there as well. There are a number of death records for an Ellen Cohen, but hard to figure which is the correct one, if any of those are. There was one in 1899 and another in 1933, which would be the only real possibilities in the search results, though many records are missing and it's possible she died overseas anyways (or married and changed her name). This page claims it is a portrait by her done in 1934, but no idea if that date is correct -- most other "hits" stop in the early 1900s. Country of origin would be the UK, as that was a London newspaper or magazine. They are definitely PD in the US, as {{PD-1923}} (published more than 95 years ago). The UK is on the edge -- they are OK only if she died more than 70 years ago. That is likely for someone who was born in 1860, though not definite. The only tag you can use is {{PD-old-70}}, or maybe {{PD-old-assumed}}, and hope that is correct. There is a combined {{PD-old-70-1923}} tag. The question is if that is a significant doubt, or just an unlikely theoretical doubt, around the COM:PRP policy. It is not impossible that someone could nominate that for deletion, and I'm not sure how that would end up (would be a consensus call). We normally don't delete stuff more than 120 years old with unknown authors, but in this case, it is a known author. But may be worth it to upload, and see what people think. I would additionally use the {{PD-Art}} tag, since the source site is claiming copyright on the digital reproduction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you Alexis Jazz and Clindberg! Here's the article Ellen Gertrude Cohen. Best WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kishore Kumar images

  1. File:Kishore Kumar dans Bhagam Bhag (1956).jpg
  2. File:Kishore Kumar in New Delhi (1956).jpg
  3. File:Kishore kumar.png

1 and 2 are from films released in India in 1956, so they are {{PD-India}}. What would the U.S. copyright status be? {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}? What about 3 in India and the U.S.? It seems unlikely that the photographer would have died over 60 years ago if it was published circa 1953–54. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Text copyvio?

Is the texte on page Category:Olivio Kocsis-Cake a copyvio from, or is it an allowed copy? --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for bringing this up. Apparently there is no free licence for this text, so the verbatim copy was indeed a copyvio. I have no removed this from the category page. De728631 (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing license from derivative file

There is a image I've found, File:Thumbnail of "We are not" video.png, which is a screenshot taken from File:Wikipedia - FactsMatter2016.webm (licensed CC-BY-SA-3.0). The problem is that the uploader doesn't mention that it is a derivative file and licensed it as their own work. Should the file be nominated for deletion or can the license be modified in order to correct the license? EdTre (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because this is a simple screenshot (a single frame from the video), no additional copyright exists apart from that of the makers of the video itself. As such the person who has created screenshot can claim own work as much as they want, but they have no legal right to do so. I would simply correct the licence in the description. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using CC-BY-SA 2.0 image from

I'd like to use this image

on wikipedia article

It is licenced under CC-BY-SA 2.0 (as are all images on

Why I try to upload it I can choose

 The copyright holder published this work with the right Creative Commons license
   CC-BY-SA 2.5
   CC-BY-SA 3.0
   CC-BY-SA 4.0 


 The copyright holder published their photo or video on Flickr with the right license
   CC-BY-SA 2.0

Which should I choose? Why isn't CC-BY-SA 2.0 listed under the general case and only on the Flickr case?

Tantrie (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In such cases when the licence isn't available I select anything and immediately change the licence template after upload. An example is here. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tantrie: There are many ways of doing this. If you want to use the Upload Wizard, select "Another reason not mentioned above" and enter {{geograph|5865313|Chris Fletcher}} (with the correct image ID and author) or {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} in the box. You can also follow the "Find out How to reuse this image link on the Geograph image page which leads you to a page at the bottom of which are two further methods of importing images to Commons, either using Geograph2Commons (which is very easy when it works) or copying and pasting into Special:Upload (which is what I usually resort to). --bjh21 (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I created [14]. Tantrie (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intel free press

Should all of these images be listed for deletion? They're just copies of images from news posts. Intel obviously doesn't hold the copyright to them all. Product shots, photos of screens, adverts etc.--BevinKacon (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first one I looked at appears ok. File:Rhino home (14981417661).jpg is soured to, where it is licensed as CC BY-SA 2.0 (click on 'Some rights reserved'). The Flickr account is Intel Free Press, which appears to be controlled by Intel Corporation. This is supported by a link to the 'Intel Free Press' page at Can you identify any problematic files? Verbcatcher (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lots of official product images, as part of news stories..
  1. File:Logitech Wireless Touch Keyboard K400.jpg
  2. File:Asus UX 31 Ultrabook PC.jpg
  3. File:IHome iDM12 Bluetooth Portlable Speaker System.jpg
  4. File:CM Storm Inferno Gaming Mouse.jpg.

--BevinKacon (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These might be allowable as 'utilitarian objects' see COM:UA. I think we have to trust Intel's claim to ownership of the copyrights of these photographs, the issue is whether there are applicable copyrights on the pictured objects. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A question of copyright.

Greetings. I would like to upload some historical content related to the Rhodesian regime, such as the badges of the of the Rhodesian Air Force. Everything prior to the UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) would naturally fall under British copyright law as Rhodesia was a British colony. But after UDI, Rhodesia was considered an illegal regime by the UK, the United Nations, and practically every country on the planet save one or two. And it was not a signatory to any international treaties, least of all any regarding copyright issues. So I am unsure if any works of the rebel government can be considered copyrighted, as practically the whole planet considered the regime and everything to do with it to be illegitimate. Am I understanding this correctly? Fry1989 eh? 01:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the regime was illegitimate, then it was a private organization whose works are protected under British and Zimbabwe copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not just illegitimate, but illegal. That is why I am confused. Are illegal organisations allowed to claim copyright? Fry1989 eh? 17:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, even illegal organisation can still be protected under the copyright laws. But this case seems to be a little more interesting and I cannot even make up an opinion on whether the copyright would apply in this case, precisely because this regime had no international copyright treaties. What is the current Zimbabwe law regarding this, does anybody know? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 21:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did they repudiate any international copyright treaties? The treaties binding the pre-independence state arguably would still be binding to the post-independence state. It seems likely the Berne Convention continued to hold over Rhodesia, and that Rhodesia intended to uphold it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WIPO text of the Copyright Act of Zimbabwe, Sept. 2004. Repeals the 1967/1981 edition. Zimbabwe got its independence as a new nation in April 1980. Vysotsky (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess this means I would not be able to upload the images as intended. A shame. Fry1989 eh? 17:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] copyright notice is the official website of the Iranian supreme leader which is available in multiple language versions. Footer of the English version reads "All Content by is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." However, this is the only indication of publication under a free license on the whole website. Other language versions (including two Persian portals: [15], [16]) have not mentioned a free release. A third Persian portal for teenagers reads "All rights reserved" [in Persian]. Other language versions do not appear to have any copyright notices.

Most images uploaded to Wikimedia Commons come from the Persian portal, for example File:Ali Khamenei meets with Emir of Kuwait Sabah Al-Ahmad 02.jpg (source: direct link, gallery link). Does the copyright notice on the English portal apply to the whole website or not? Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically the notice applies to the entire website (including the Persian Fersian language version) and legally the Creative Commons license is irrevocable, however it's so ambiguously placed that I personally wouldn't upload anything from that website. Have you tried contacting the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for clarification? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is better to consult with fellow Wikimedians first and then contact the website if needed (because they probably do not bother responding).
Addendum: The footer reads All Content by <a href=""></a> is licensed under a <a href="">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Note how they have provided a link to rather than 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the copyright notice specifically includes "English." In the link then it doesn't apply to any other language version, simple as that. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So we should only accept files from for now.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-shape question

File:Concrete, Washington flag.svg is a not-quite-exact vector derivative of an image found here. Is the original flag design complex enough for copyright in the United States? clpo13(talk) 21:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. They wen't full Liberia with that one didn't they? GMGtalk 21:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, needs more trees. clpo13(talk) 21:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, this is the first website I couldn't retrieve due to the latest EU policy: "We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time." De728631 (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@De728631: Try accessing this archived link and complaining to your MEP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The archive link works for me. Now, how to contact this MEP dude... De728631 (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you should contact the website that insists on using cookies in a way that conflicts with GDPR, or perhaps cannot be bothered to work out whether they are actually in conflict with GDPR. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Verbcatcher: Such contact might have to involve leaving Europe or using a proxy (I would not advise either).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we can use images from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but I want to make sure...

The IPCC is a hybrid entity, although under the umbrella of the United Nations. From the organization's website:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the international body for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC was set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide policymakers with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The IPCC produces the world's most authoritative international report on climate change (global warming) which includes some well-designed, informative graphics. I had hoped to upload some of those graphs and charts, e.g., Slide #5 from Fifth Assessment Report - Synthesis Report - a SlideShare presentation IPCC published to accompany Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Citation:

IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

But the IPCC intellectual property statement seems to preclude uploading any IPPC image to Wikimedia Commons:

Unless otherwise stated, the information available on this website, including text, logos, graphics, maps, images, audio clips and electronic downloads is the property of the IPCC and is protected by intellectual property laws.

You may freely download and copy the material contained on this website for your personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell, redistribute, compile or create derivative works therefrom, subject to more specific restrictions that may apply to specific materials.

Reproduction of a limited number of figures or short excerpts of IPCC material is authorized free of charge and without formal written permission provided that the original source is properly acknowledged, with mention of the name of the report, the publisher and the numbering of the page(s) or the figure(s). Permission can only be granted to use the material exactly as it is in the report. Please be aware that figures cannot be altered in any way, including the full legend.

Reproduction of video files is authorized free of charge and without formal written permission provided that the original source is acknowledged.

For media use it is sufficient to cite the source while using the original graphic or figure. In line with established internet usage, any external website may provide a hyperlink to the IPCC website or to any of its pages without requesting permission.

For any other use, permission is required.

Is my understanding correct?

Many thanks - Markworthen (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Markworthen: Those terms are completely non-free, because they prohibit commercial use, redistribution, derivative works and "any other use" that's not explicitly allowed. However, data is not subject to copyright protection, so simple line charts, area graphs, scatter plots etc. may be uploaded as {{PD-ineligible}}. LX (talk, contribs) 08:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Markworthen (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One user ID, three photographers?

Various explanations are possible, one of them being that Maxwell, Ton and Faena are three names legitimately used by the single person who here goes under the name of PhotoFan76. But I must say that more obvious explanations [cough] raise the possibility of copyright infringement. What's the best way of investigating this kind of thing? -- Hoary (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is clear that Brandon Maxwell, Tommy Ton and Sebastian Faena are different people, so they cannot all be PhotoFan76. Also suspicious is that the EXIF data shows these images come from different high-end digital cameras, and that our images are low resolution. There are strong reasons to suspect that the licenses attributed to these images are incorrect. They should be tagged with {{subst:npd}} (see Template:No permission since). Verbcatcher (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hoary and Verbcatcher: ✓ Done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cover of an old popular tech magazine

An article of the Russian Wikipedia ru:Техника — молодёжи about old (since 1933) Soviet/Russian popular science/tech/SciFi magazine currently uses a FU cover image in its infobox. I indend to replace it (similarly to some other magazines) with the cover of the very first issue, considering it better complying the rules of FU. However for this specific case [20] I would like to ask, whether it may actually comply to PD-ineligible, PD-texlogo or similar free license, and be actually eligible to upload to the Commons. Tatewaki (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The emblem in the upper left corner is too complex, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The top logo displays the first letters of two words as a 3D object, that is almost definitely copyrightable. However, simply placing two letters onto a red rectangle is not anything that could be considered grounds for copyright, otherwise any word that has been highlighted with a highlighter would be unuseable. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tatewaki is asking for comments on the 1933 image (here), with letters in a cogwheel, not on the image currently in the Russian Wikipedia article. Ruslik and User:Gone Postal, are you commenting on File:T mol logo.svg? The 1933 magazine cover appears to be an anonymous work, as it is over 50 years old was published before 1943 it should be public domain in Russia. {{PD-Russia-1996}} appears to apply. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have commented on both. File:T mol logo.svg in my opinion is definitely not a case of simple 2D geometric shapes. The older logo is fine. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 14:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To make sure that we are on the same page: yes, I was talking specifically of the old 1930s cover that is definitely "cleaner" copyright-wise than the cover currently used in the article. The File:T mol logo.svg is up to admins of Commons - if anything, it can be discussed whether to reupload it to RuWP on FU grounds, or the old cover can act both as a cover and a logo. Regarding the old version: I can also see the hammer-styled "T" there, which added some doubt whether to count it above or below the threshold for originality. However, if you think it can go just as "published anonymously before 1943 and author did not become known during 50 years after" - thank you, I will check this in the first issue and 10/20/30/40/50th anniversary issues tonight, and use this license unless I find anyone mentioned for it. Tatewaki (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a higher resolution image of the same cover linked from here. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I commented on 1933 cover. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Work of art created by ancestor

Hi there,

I have a beautiful work of art that was created by a great uncle of mine. He is since deceased and I would like to add this to the Detmold, Germany Wikipedia page as the work of art is of a house there in 1912.

I am not connected with his descendants (if he had any) and I'm wondering if it would be possible to add this work?

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanetteW407 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thank you for asking. You can add an image if the copyright on the work of art had expired. In Germany copyright expires 70 years after the death of the creator, so it is ok if your great uncle died before 1948, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany. Alternatively, if the work of art is permanently installed in a public place in Germany then you can add a photograph of it using the 'freedom of panorama' rule, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Germany. Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if it is a sculpture you would have to have taken the photograph yourself, or be able to establish permission from the photographer. Most photographs of public domain paintings are allowable as {{Pd-art}}. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Guide to sanitation in natural disasters / M. Assar

I would like to know if the document is under a free license that is acceptable to commons. The pdf file says Publications of the World Health Organization enjoy copyright protection in accordance with the provisions of Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention. Nevertheless governmental agencies or learned and professional societies may reproduce data or excerpts or illustrations from them without requesting an authorization from the World Health Organization. . Does this mean Public domain? --Sreejith K (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In short, no. We can't accept content that's not free for commercial use. GMGtalk 16:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Sergey Nalobin at the International forum of the Russian-speaking broadcasters.jpg

Does anyone know if this Russian image is free? If it is , please feel free to review it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Использование аналитических и авторских материалов (сопровожденных знаком © и словами МИА «Россия сегодня») возможно только после получения письменного согласия МИА «Россия сегодня». В отношении указанных материалов запрещена любая переработка, их использование возможно только при 100% соблюдении содержания. При этом стоит учитывать, что в отношении ряда аналитических и авторских материалов предусмотрено только коммерческое использование." [21] As such it is a non-derivative licence. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 19:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry wrong part. "Использование информационных текстовых и информационно-графических материалов, правообладателем которых является МИА «Россия сегодня» (сопровожденных знаком © и словами МИА «Россия сегодня») возможно на безвозмездной основе (исключительно для некоммерческого использования) без письменного согласия, в порядке установленном в Разделе 3 настоящих Правил." [22] As such it is a non-commercial licence. Still delete it. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 19:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded by Gerfried Pongratz

Special:ListFiles/Gerfried Pongratz

My hands are full atm and several of his uploads need to be checked. If nobody picks it up I'll probably get around it later, but I hope someone can help. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


FULL DISCLOSURE-----good afternoon, i work for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and i had a question regarding the licenses that are required to upload photos onto Wikimedia Commons. i understand all media files need to be under a creative commons license that allows the free use of the photo. However i have run into trouble with the legal department in regards to the "remixing, editing, transforming" portion of the license. They are perfectly ok with the sharing of the photos across the various sister sites of Wikimedia however the last part is what is causing a concern. I looked at the creative commons website and noticed they have several licenses that allows the image to be shared freely but with some restrictions, i.e. remixing, editing,transforming. they include--- Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 CC BY-ND'& Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 CC BY-NC-ND. In the Upload Wizard these licenses are not available to select, is it safe to say that is due to the fact Wikimedia commons does not accept these license at all or am i able to add certain restrictions to the photos.

The purpose of this is we have updated photos of the new CEO ans building and want to ensure that the photos that are being used on WIkipedia articles are updated and correct and not outdated. thank you all for your time, my email is enabled so feel free to reach out. Thank you all again DaP87 (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi DaP87. Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept any free licenses which place restrictions on either commercial or derivative use per Commons:Licensing. You can see which CC licenses Commons accepts at Commons:Creative Commons copyright tags.
In addition, although this is not really so much an issue with respect to Commons, you need to carefully read en:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and en:Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure if you intend to edit anything about your employer found on English Wikipedia on behalf of your employer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[Note: Posted edit by Marchjuly to strikethrough "free" per discussion below. -- 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)]Reply[reply]
@DaP87: you can license them as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, that way derivatives are allowed but are required to be licensed with the same Creative Commons license. I don't know why exactly you want BY-NC-ND, if the goal is to stop 4chan from drawing silly moustaches on the face of your CEO the only solution is not to publish the photos, anywhere. No license or copyright restrictions will help against that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you could also use a hybrid license like this example User:Fir0002/credits. -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Marchjuly and Alexis jazz in regards to the restrictions I feel they are worried that someone might edit the photo completely, and I understand that the only way to avoid that would be to not publish at all. I just wanted to make sure I explored every possible option out there before reporting back. In regards to editing pages directly that is not something I intended to do. I was going to use the Template:Request edit and propose some changes i.e. new updated photo. Also understanding that my request might not go through. I want to make sure I do everything correctly, thank you both for the insight and thank you Slowking4 § for the email. happy editing!! DaP87 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slowking4, please stop recommending Fir0002's example licence template. It doesn't achieve what this user wants, and makes it more likely the image is unusable legally outside of Wikipedia, thus making it more likely to be used illegally. We should be encouraging users to embrace free content, not reminding anyone of the underhand tricks used by folk who never got free content, and ultimately left the project because of that. -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i will advise GLAMs on all their options. it does exactly what they want: NC + wikipedia only, but it is too bizarre for many to believe. no incidents of illegal reuse, rather the copyfraud is on the CC-BY-SA. it is not underhanded, Fir200 was very forthright about what he was doing; it is the community here that permits licenses that are an assault on free culture. photographers leave not because they "do not get it", but because the toxic culture does not collaborate with content creators. if it is so underhanded, close the loophole. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DaP87: do not follow Slowking4's advice. That license will cause you more problems than it'll solve. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DaP87: If you upload content to Commons, even under the license Slowking4 is suggesting, it's going to be assumed that you are pretty much OK with others downloading and using the content. You can set terms that you expect others to comply with by licensing the content in a certain way, but that's about all you can do when you upload the file. Commons is not going to track down everyone who downloads the content and make sure they're abiding by the terms of its license; you or your company is going to have to do that and you pretty much only going to be able to do that after they've download it and used it in someway. Commons/Wikipedia might be able to police itself so to speak and remove any further re-uploads of your content which violate its licensing policy or the license you've added to the file; it's not, however, going to go searching for violations out in the real world or on other websites. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

" doesn't accept any free licenses which place restrictions on either commercial or derivative use " - Marchjuly

By definition this is incorrect, if have those restrictions it is not free.

You should read this: [23]

The only CC licenses that are free are cc-by and cc-by-sa only, see:[24] also to understand.

Double licenses also allow commercial uses and derivative work, different rules, but they allow.

All our images are free was defined here Commons:Licensing, but the only cc licenses accepted to be free was not defined by us, but for something bigger then us. The correct sentence would be:

"Wikimedia Commons only accepts free licenses, for that reason licenses with restrictions on either commercial or derivative are not accepted by themselves."

Peace -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 15:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've corrected my original post accordingly. Thank you for catching that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The only CC licenses that are free are cc-by and cc-by-sa only" (cough) CC-PD (cough) CC0 (cough) CC-SAGone Postal ( ) 01:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DaP87: If it would help you to persuade your colleagues, we can give you many examples of other bodies, in fields of work related to yours, who have made images available under an open licence - for example, Carl Zeiss Microscopy and the Wellcome Trust. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jovanka Beckles at Our Revolution Meeting.png

For this image, the uploader has E-mailed me asking if the image is free. Is it free on youtube? --Leoboudv (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Leoboudv: why would it be? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: The uploader Emailed me and said: "Hey, why are you flagging the stills I uploaded?

I shot those [photos] for Jovanka and work with her campaign. We need them on wikipedia. How can I correct this I'm new to wikipedia editing. Thank you, Luke."

    • His second E-mail said : "Sorry I don't know how to reply to you directly lol. I've changed the youtube licensing to creative commons."
  • Since he has now licensed the images as CC BY 3.0 as I told him to on his talkpage for youtube and this are his photos, I am reviewing them now. Thank You, Alexis Jazz.

Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Leoboudv: I don't know if we strictly need OTRS in this case, but it may be safer to direct the uploader to OTRS. The video uses many shots and photos and there is no clear way to tell if none of them are derivative works. If someone does nominate it in the future saying "possible DW", it may get deleted per COM:PRP. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I think its best to leave it like this since he says he took the images....and he didn't have to tell me this. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This appears in the video at 1:24. Strictly speaking this still was not extracted from the YouTube video because it does not show the subtitle that appears in the video at that point. Does this affect the need for OTRS confirmation? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You can E-mail the uploader if you wish. I would give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template talk:PD-USGov-Military-National Guard

So, basically we have 23k files using this tag, each of which may or may not be a free work of a federal employee. Input/suggestions welcome on the talk page. GMGtalk 16:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interpreting Permissions - Ohio Manual Of Traffic Control Devices

I've been requesting older copies of the Ohio Manual Of Traffic Control Devices (OMUTCD) from the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), I received the documents and an answer for what the work's status is, but I want to have someone else look at the permissions to agree about what it's saying, since it seems slightly contradictory. The quote below is the full text of the notice provided.

"Please note the below Public Domain Notice concerning use of the OMUTCD.

PUBLIC DOMAIN NOTICE The OMUTCD is in the public domain and as such it is not copyrighted. Individuals can use, reproduce or copy material from the OMUTCD, such as tables, figures, and text quotation without seeking permission from ODOT. When using or referencing material from the OMUTCD, please be sure to reference the source as the OMUTCD, the Edition and published by ODOT. It is also helpful to include the section and paragraph number of the material quoted so that the material in context within the full OMUTCD can be located. However, this publication may not be reproduced or distributed for a fee without the specific, written authorization of the Ohio Department of Transportation, Division of Communications."

The first sentence says it's 'public domain' and 'not copyrighted', however, the final sentence bars 'reproduction or distribution for a fee without specific permission from ODOT', which doesn't sound like it fits a Public Domain definition.

I'd been clear with them that I had intended to submit the documents here if it was acceptable and this was the answer I got back from them. I guess I want a second person who's a little bit more familiar with this topic to look it over.--The Navigators (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Navigators: Most of the media in that manual is probably copied from the Public Domain USDOT MUTCD.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We even have a template for that: {{PD-MUTCD-OH}}. clpo13(talk) 15:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks for the help. I just wanted to make sure I was interpreting the legal language correctly. Now I just need to, have a chat with them about scanning it myself... Since their scan job, leaves a fair bit to be desired.--The Navigators (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:This section was archived on a request by: The Navigators (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can someone at VPC please review this image. It is stated to be under a 'free license'...but is that license PD or CC0? Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Leoboudv: wow, at first I thought it was a scam. See also and It does seem legit after all, but they are not trying too hard to show that. The answer to the license question is neither. It's a press photo, certainly not CC0 and I wouldn't even call it PD-author. It allows Wikipedia to use it and "authorize and grant the use of this photo for public use" and "We the copyright holder of these images allow anyone to use it for general public". What does that even mean? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: It means "We got some bad advice."   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: I guess it does. @Leoboudv: are you in contact with them? Tell them to go to (for CC0) or https://creative* (for other CC). It even provides HTML code for their website. I will tell the uploader on their talk page, but I don't know if they are connected to Digital Jukebox Records. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment oh, there's already been a DR. Odd. And Yvonne Curtis actually does have a specific CC license. More odd. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: No I am not in contact with the copyright owner and no one has contacted me. Perhaps someone can contact her if you have time. Its a shame people put in vague terms like 'free license' instead of public domain. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The permission is not sufficient, IMO. I nominated for deletion, but Ruthven closed it as Kept. Feel free to nominate it again. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Yann and Leoboudv: they updated their sites with CC0. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • {Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Thank You Alexis Jazz --Leoboudv (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment yeah - feel free to nominate it a hundred times, until you get the result you want. we typically allow good faith license "mistakes", except when you want to make a "point": you are doing it wrong. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've started a discussion about the template (and license) compatibility with Commons in Template Any thought or opinion is welcome. --Discasto talk 21:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book published in 1917 simultaneously in New York and London

Could this book be considered in the public domain? strakhov (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Strakhov: Since it was published before 1923, it's public domain in the United States per {{PD-1923}}. The authors died in 1935 and 1941, more than 70 years ago, so it's also public domain in the United Kingdom per {{PD-old-70}} (see COM:CRT#United Kingdom), but I don't think that matters if it was published simultaneously in both countries. {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1941}} would be the best license template for it (1941 being the death year of the last living author). clpo13(talk) 22:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I found Mrs. Stapley's deathdate afterwards, and I noticed it was OK in UK 'date wise' too. My doubt concerned only the fact of simultaneous publishing in the USA (before 1923) and other country, and the degree of significance of that fact. strakhov (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should a photograph be deleted simply because the photographer is anonymous?

Consider a photograph. Known to have been published (UK) in 1910 and widely distributed at the time. It passes US 1923 PD rules. The photographer is an anonymous worker - either a commercial photographer or an employee. Either way, it's very clearly a work for hire (which matters, under UK law) and the copyright has always resided with the customer (who also owns the subject).

Is the longevity of the anonymous photographer, who may well have lived into the 1950s, i.e. within the last 70 years, sufficient reason by itself to delete it?

Similarly, is vagueness in the metadata here, sufficient reason by itself to delete it? If we know that the date was provably over a short range (and thus well before 1923) but we don't know if this was 1909 or 1910, is that reason enough?

I see no reson why either of these would support deletion. Yet clearly others disagree. Do we have any firm policy regarding this, one way or the other? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's work for hire, then surely the company that hired the photographer holds the copyright? Why would the photographers background or death date matter?--BevinKacon (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's work for hire, the company/organization will be able to provide a copy of the appropriate paperwork. Just wishfully assuming that a picture may have been work for hire, as some users tend to do, is insufficient. Jcb (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you agree then that a 1910 work for hire would date from the publication date, not the photographer's death? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photographers death date+70 years (if known), would over rule any company copyright imo.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything depends on the law of the country of origin. If there is no provision for anonymous works, or they make "anonymous" status hard to attain, it may make sense. Not sure that work for hire actually matters for the UK -- they did not implement the provision of EU directive that they probably should have, but their law still does differ some. Regardless of who owns the copyright, the term last 70 years past the life of the human author. But per their law, if the photographer is unknown, and did not become known for 70 years past publication (or more specifically, making the work available to the public, which is different than pure publication), then it should qualify for {{PD-UK-unknown}}. If the author's name is known but the death date is not, well, then yes that is a problem. That is more of an "orphan work", which countries really have not grappled with in their law. But the UK's law is "unknown", not even strictly anonymous. And if the author's name was not present on the original publications, that should also qualify as anonymous, unless their name did become known later. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Agrigento - viadotto ferroviario.jpg

Does anyone know if this Italian image is free? I don't know if there is a license. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Photos by Giorgio Stagni, drawings and articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Details about license: read more." [25]Gone Postal ( ) 19:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank You for your help Gone Postal. Now I can review this image. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extra legem works - e.g. works created in the region of modern South Korea under Empire of Japan rule

A recent deletion for a work created in the area of South Korea in 1935, at which time the territory was under the rule and laws of the Empire of Japan (1910-1945), raises the question of how to judge works that were created under copyright law that no longer exists. Where it appears that no (new) modern country has created a copyright act that is specifically retroactive for works created under the prior legislature for the same country/region then the work may legally become extra legem, so literally no copyright law can apply or be enforced for those works.

The example case was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:V.W. Peters, letter, 1935.10.7, Songdo, Korea, to Father, Rosemead, California, USA (Peters 351007 letter~1).jpg, though the creator of the work (a letter) was an American, they were living in Korea while it was being ruled by the Empire of Japan. Consequently any potential claim of copyright for the text of the letter effectively vanished in 1947. The new copyright act of Japan has some provision for limited retroactive recognition of works created in WW2 allied countries (which by now have long expired as they were up to around 10 years), however even this provision does not appear to apply for the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea as it was not recognized as a wartime Ally.

The case of 1910-1945 works created in (modern) South Korea is complex, but if Wikimedia Commons can establish a generic rule that extra legem works will be treated as public domain, it may be possible to add a section to COM:CRT for these very unusual cases so we can established a casebook to help avoid the volunteer burden of research and debate created for these types of deletion request. Thanks -- (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright is a national law, not a local one. Thus in this case I would say that Japanese law would apply, since modern Japan has taken over all of the legal rights and obligations of Imperial Japan. Now, there maybe a complex issue when no current government claims to be a continuation of some previous government. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 19:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point that matters for Commons rules is whether those works are public domain under present law in the country of origin and in the United States. It may be debatable which is the country of origin (South Korea, North Korea or Japan), but we should check the law of these countries. At least, I expect the law of South Korea to have some provisions for works created in Korea under Japanese rule, and maybe North Korea law too. If under these rules the works weren't free, it would be hard to argue that they are free in the country of origin even if Japanese law said they are free in Japan.--Pere prlpz (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reminder: South Korea did not exist before 1948. The example work was created in 1935 within the Empire of Japan. North Korea is irrelevant. Nobody has been able to refer to part of current Japan copyright, or South Korea copyright law, or an example case that shows that either copyright law might protect works created in the region of South Korea before South Korea existed. -- (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The country can just claim to be a legal successor of another region or country. So we do not need the each contemporary law to say "we recognise the law of these old countries". The question is: Is contemporary Japan a legal successor of Imperial Japan? If so, then its courts would claim jurisdiction over the acts done within Imperial Japan's territories. Of course, it is possible that North Korea or even South Korea also claims to be a legal successor, but not of the entire Imperial Japan, but only of the territories controlled by Japan within contemporary Korean borders. In that case we may have the opposite conundrum, that we actually have several countries that claim to act on the behalf of this region. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 19:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Japan is not a legal "successor" as Korea was excluded from the Treaty of San Francisco. Without that obvious link/chain there is no other legal mechanism that would support such a claim. The other option of the modern law of South Korea would have to explicitly define its retrospective application, law does not automatically apply without stating where and who it applies to. Where there is room for interpretation, this would have been defined by legal cases setting precedent. As far as anyone can tell, this has never happened, so in our project terms, it falls below the required "significant doubt" to be of concern for hosting files here. -- (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not understand what this has to do with rights and obligations of Imperial Japan. Copyright is neither right nor obligation. Anyway any rights and obligations that Imperial Japan had had were renounced in en:Treaty of San Francisco. Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We would need to know the stance of both modern day South Korea as well as Japan in those matters. Anything else is speculation. I have no idea how to find information about this, though. I read this is in the hands of native speakers. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there was no separate Korean copyright law for the colony, then I guess Japanese law applied at the time. The first Korean law after independence would pretty much dictate how much of the previous law was still in effect, or not. Works would not be public domain unless the new law said they were, really. There is always *some* law in effect for a particular region, and the subsequent laws would determine how that would be treated going forward. Colonies usually have a separate legal history than the main country. I seriously doubt that a new law would declare works by Koreans public domain simply because they were made prior to becoming a sovereign nation again. On the other hand, it sounds like copyright was not seriously enforced in South Korea until their 1987 law, so the details may not have mattered much.
For the letter above, it sounds like it was authored while someone was living in Korea. That fact matters little. As a U.S. citizen, they would get full copyright rights in the U.S. per their law regardless of where they are living or what the law is there. If they published it without a copyright notice, only then would the copyright vanish (but would have been subject to the URAA if they were living abroad when the publication was made). On the other hand, if the letter was never published at the time, then it is the country of first publication which would matter more for our policy. The author would have full U.S. copyright to the limit of U.S. law, but formalities would have been required of course. The only thing that would have changed due to Korean independence is that the copyright relations between Japan and the U.S. (which covered Korea) would have evaporated, meaning the author would get no protection in Korea itself until a new treaty was signed. So, the main question is where that letter was first published, which would determine "country of origin" and which laws would be applied. For the U.S., it would matter if was there a notice (and/or renewal if required). They did not lose U.S. copyright due to changes in other countries; they would have had to lose it via normal U.S. means (or maybe it's still valid). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD check, German law

Could someone please double-check that the images in Category:Sturm Cigarette Company are correctly tagged for copyright? HLHJ (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FoP in UK

Hi, I found some discrepancy in deletion requests regarding FoP in United Kingdom. Is the Tate Modern a public place or not? Yann (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are also disagreements about Madame Tussauds:

Based on past DRs under UK law, special exhibitions that require a paid ticket are not public spaces, while galleries where the public can "wander in" without a ticket are public spaces. On this rationale most of the Tate Modern and other Tate galleries, are a public space, we just need to exclude special (i.e. temporary) exhibition galleries and nowhere inside Madame Tussauds is a public space. -- (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FoP in the UK covers not only "a public place" but also "premises open to the public". There seems to be a clear consensus that "open to the public" includes places where the public is admitted on payment of a fee, and this is consistent with other areas of UK law. The Tate deletion above was because the work is a painting and hence ineligible for FoP. The first Tussauds deletion was because the work is not permanently installed. I think the rationale for the second Tussauds deletion is incorrect: FoP can apply in a museum. For the others, the main controversy is over the requirement that a work be "permanently situated", which may well not apply where there's a succession of works on display. --bjh21 (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the correction, this was lazy thinking on my part. -- (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a UK legal definition of "permanent installation" which might be helpful is detemining cases such as this? For example, a museum may have a permanent collection of artwork, while at the same time it might host exhibitions from other museums for a specific period of time. In the former case, it seems unlikely that artworks involved are going to be permanently installed to such an extent that they cannot be relatively easily moved/removed by approved persons for cleaning or other maintenance as neeeded. The museum may in fact loan out some of its permanent collection to other museums for a short period of time. "Permantly installed" tends to conjure up images of stone/bronze pieces installed in public squares or other outdoor areas to such an extent that they cannot be removed/moved without a considerable amount of effort and time, but I'm not sure if that definition is the standard which should be applied in cases such as the wax figures at Tussauds, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I understand "permanent installation", as "as long as the artwork exists". If a wax figure is removed from public display, is it destroyed or stored somewhere? In the former case, I think FoP should apply. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems likely that 'permanent' is meant in opposition to 'temporary', and means with an open-ended time frame, not until the end of time. A permanent exhibition in a museum is only there until the curator changes the exhibition. A city council can remove statues that were on permanent display. If a photograph was taken when an object was on permanent display then freedom of panorama should apply even if the object was subsequently removed from permanent display. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has the alleged broadness of UK FOP with respect to a copyrighted wax sculpture in a museum which charges admission been tested in a court in the UK?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I closed 3 DRs above as Kept, as per Bjh21 above. One undeletion requested. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question regarding Fair Use release

Dear All

I am the legal owner of the copyright of the work of my mother. I wish to add a picture of her painting in Wiki common, a low resolution picture under a fair use rationale. Just like as is done for "Campbells soup cans by Andy Warhol". Can you inform me how to proceed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrRijsdijk (talk • contribs) 20:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DrRijsdijk: We don't allow Fair Use here. If you want to use the file elsewhere, please read WP:F for English Wikipedia or m:nfc for other projects & languages.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can post the image to Wikipedia Commons using a free license, see Commons:Choosing a license. You should specify your mother as 'author' and indicate that you are the legal owner. If your mother has died and you have inherited the ownership then you should indicate this, ideally using a template such as those in Category:License tags for transferred copyright. You may be asked to establish ownership using Commons:OTRS. If you want to post it as a fair-use image them you can post it to English Wikipedia, providing that you meet the other requirements at w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Typo in copyright holder's name

And probably other files downloaded from GitHub's Octicons repository.

Citing the files' copyright notice:

Copyright © GithHub

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

See? "Copyright © GithHub" i/o "Copyright © GitHub". I suppose this is a typo. Especially given the source of the images.

I'd just go ahead and fix this typo, BUT:

  • Assuming this typo was introduced at the moment the images were imported to Commons: Doesn't this invalidate the licence? I mean, GitHub and not GithHub had licenced the images for everyone's use; so the licence, as it is now, seems ungrounded?
  • Assuming the original GitHub's licence said "GitHub" not "GithHub" - didn't Commons violate the licence, as it did not correctly include "*the above copyright notice*", which is a condition of the licence?
  • For same reasons: Aren't all people, who have downloaded the files from Commons and are now using them personally or commercially in violation of the licence terms?
  • Or was the typo present on GitHub's repo when the files were imported to Commons? Did Commons just reiterate the original GitHub's typo? (The typo is not there on GitHub's repo at the moment). Can we confirm this was not the case? If it was, are we allowed to fix the typo now?

I don't know. I have feeling I'm exaggerating and I'm looking for problems where there are none. But I'm not a lawyer. So I prefer to ask when I'm in doubt :) before going ahead and "fixing" stuff myself. Marcgalrespons 10:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These two files look like examples of {{PD-shape}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody cares. Typos like this aren't really legally significant. We should fix it; there's certainly nothing stopping us from doing so.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FoP underground tunnel in Singapore

Hello, what about this file uploaded by me yesterday ? See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Singapore. The painting is not photographed in front, and doesn't seem signed by a notorious artist, but I prefer to ask now rather than see it deleted in the next months -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This does not for qualify for freedom of panorama because this does not apply to paintings in Singapore. The paintings are too prominent to be treated as de minimis. In my view this image not allowable, but you may want to wait in for others to give their opinion. As the uploader you can nominate it for 'speedy deletion' within seven days of uploading. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting, thanks for your opinion. But in my view, these paintings are more decorative than artistic. Only geometric shapes of colors, that don't meet the threshold of originality -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Verbcatcher: If you meant "This does not qualify", then I agree with you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jeff G, I meant 'does not', thanks for pointing this out.
@Basile Morin: as the w:en:Law of Singapore is based on the English common law system we can assume that it has a low threshold of originality. In the absence of country-specific guidance we should assume that the threshold is similar to that in Australia, New Zealand and the UK, and that these paintings would qualify for copyright. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really, then I'm very surprised. Here is an example of art work from the UK that was kept, and I think these geometrical shapes here are much more basic. Not very convinced nor motivated as I like this picture for its perspective effect but if there's a consensus I'm going to follow it -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The example you give is a Ford Motors logo (an US corporation) in a photo from Poland, so it would not have been assessed under UK guidelines. Images of the Australian Aboriginal flag (on Wikipedia at w:en:File:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg) have been been consistently deleted from Commons, see Commons:Threshold of originality#Australia. This flag is less complex than the paintings in your image. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, then I've sent a DR. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The author of this Czech image is stated to be Jan Patach who committed suicide on January 16 1969. Is this image free today--49 years later? Or would anyone wish to file a DR? I don't know Czech copyright rules but I thought it was 70 yrs pma in Europe. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You thought correctly; see Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Czech Republic. But so far, nobody has claimed that the photo is in the public domain. Jan.Kamenicek stated that the copyright holder (presumably Palach's heirs) released the photo under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. I don't see anything supporting that, but I might be missing something. Perhaps the uploader would like to clarify? LX (talk, contribs) 09:56, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Leoboudv and LX: I uploaded the photo from the web of Strana zelených (see the source) which states at the bottom of the page that all the content of the web is licensed under CC Attribution 3.0. I do not know where they took the image from and who gave them permission to publish it under this license. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thinking about it more, I admit there can be doubts they had the right to publish it under this license. For this reason I have no objections against its deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:45, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked the file to be deleted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I'm sorry I responded late LX (I had a lot of work to do on Monday) but thank you very much for clearing up the copyright matter. The uploader was confused. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image Upload


I have tried to load an image into my sand box, but was blocked due to possible copywrite issues.

The image was taken from an unknown newspaper source from around 1947. It is a picture of my father Peter Stone(now deceased) and I wanted to add his entry to the Welsh Internationals page.

What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolbreeze51 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The image is likely to be in copyright and is therefore unacceptable on Commons. You could upload as a fair-use image to English Wikipedia if it meets the conditions in w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. You appear to be developing an article on Peter Stone in your sandbox. You should probably not upload the image to Wikipedia until you have posted your article into article space. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archaeological Survey of India

Hi, Are works by the Archaeological Survey of India acceptable under {{GODL-India}}? This potentially concerns a lot of files including

I uploaded these files, and nominated them as they may not be acceptable under {{FoP-India}}. Now I am not even sure about this, as these boards are engraving. Could they be considered 3D? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe such boards fall under Template:PD-text, since they contain merely informational texts (akin to artwork descriptions) and are not artworks themselves, i.e. FoP does not apply to them. In case of artworks the situation may be different. Brandmeister (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems others have different opinions: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yann. Yann (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Works by en:Archaeological Survey of India is free per GODL-India. So you can use license of object as {{GODL-India}} and a free license for your photo. Jee 04:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FoP and Bridgeman v. Corel

COM:Freedom of panorama and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

What if someone takes a photo of something that is covered by FoP (not PD yet) and the photo is not released with a free license, but it's a slavish copy? {{FoP-Nederland}} and {{PD-art}} are no licenses. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FoP is rare for 2D objects. Ruslik (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing that triggered this were some photos of stained glass in the UK. It looks like they can at least be covered by PD-1923, though they are from the UK so it doesn't entirely make sense. But if the windows had been made in 1930, its creator died in 1980 and the photo of it (slavish copy or not) wouldn't have a free license it would be acceptable for Commons but we wouldn't have a license tag for it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Freedom of panorama in the UK includes stained glass in a public place, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom. This includes interior views of buildings open to the public such as churches. The 2D/3D distinction is not the test to use for UK FoP. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Verbcatcher: I know. But if you have a photo that isn't freely licensed but is a slavish copy and you rely on FoP-UK for the stained glass, you can't license it on Commons. If the photo has a free license, FoP-UK can piggyback on that. If the stained glass was installed before 1923 or the author died at least 50 years ago, FoP-UK can piggyback on that. Nevermind those licenses aren't valid for the UK, we have FoP-UK for that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: If a photo is a slavish copy then it does not need to be freely licensed. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. indicates that a photographer who makes a slavish copy does not have intellectual property rights to the photograph. However, a 'slavish copy' photograph is not necessarily free because we need to account for any rights to the object that has been copied.
Where it applies, freedom of panorama allows us to disregard the rights of the creator of the item that is depicted. Are you saying that only the photographer can claim the freedom of panorama, and that we cannot claim freedom of panorama unless the photographer has done so? This seems unlikely.
I'm sorry if I have misunderstood. It might help to have an explicit example - are you considering a photograph of a scene in the Netherlands which incorporates a photograph of a stained glass window in the UK? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Verbcatcher: no, a user had changed the licensed on her files to "FoP-UK" (and as one would expect, they got tagged "No license since", but those have been fixed). But here's an example: St Katherine's Aisle Window:
"This beautiful stained glass window is in St. Michael's Church in Linlithgow Scotland. (..) In 1992 the 750th anniversary of the church was celebrated with the installation of a new stained glass window in St Katherine's Aisle by Crear McCartney."
FoP-UK? Yes. Slavish copy? Looks like it. Creative Commons? Nope. PD-1923? Nope. PD-old-anything? Nope, artist passed away in 2016. Can this be uploaded to Commons? Probably not, as there is no valid license tag available. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: We should not get hung up on which licence tags have been created. However, failing to identify an applicable license tag is a good reason to recheck our analysis. I now agree with what I think are your conclusions. Every file on Commons must either be public domain or be licensed by somebody. The freedom of panorama rule sometimes allows us to disregard the copyright of the creator of the original object, but we should not combine it with the 'slavish copy' principle to declare an image to be free. Bridgeman v. Corel refers to a slavish copy of a public domain work, but it may not be applicable to a slavish copy of a work that is not in the public domain. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Verbcatcher: that's interesting. Slavish copies being legally not slavish copies if the work depicted is protected by copyright. I would have never thought of that, but you may well be right. That's odd. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another example is File:Grumbach Selbstportrait Skizze.jpg. We have the permission from the artist. We don't need a permission from the photographer, as our PD-Art rationale applies. But we don't have a combined template now. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, the current PD-Art rationale as specified by the WMF wouldn't apply, but the underlying logic from Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. would seemingly apply (at least in the U.S.). This was the subject of previous discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/03#PD-Art_for_CC-BY-SA_? Did anyone ask the WMF to extend their official position from the current position of "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain" to the more expansive "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional freely licensed works of art are similarly freely licensed"? —RP88 (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I wrote to WMF Legal about this case. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two potential copyrights here: the copyright of the stained glass artist and the copyright of the photographer. Freedom of panorama frees us from the copyright of the stained glass artist, but has no effect on the photographer's copyright (which is only a copyright on the original elements in the photograph itself). If it really is a slavish copy, then the photographer has no copyrights (and thus we would be able to host it). However, it seems questionable to legally assert that a photograph of a stained glass window is actually a slavish copy, as lighting is a critical aspect of stained-glass photography. For example, no one is going to photograph a stained-glass window at night under artificial lighting. Most likely, they will photograph it on a sunny day, or maybe at sunset for a warmer color palette. The photographer can argue that this was a creative choice (however obvious) and thus they have a copyright on that aspect of the photograph, i.e. the lighting. Freedom of panorama doesn't help us for that (unless the photograph itself is permanently displayed in a public place). Kaldari (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: Just noticed your "ping please" :) See my reply above. Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaldari: thanks, I don't read everything all the time. I had also missed Yann's addition above. It looks like I forgot to link Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet or in a book, that should answer your question. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I started a discussion on the issue of the photographer's copyright at Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag. Kaldari (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright on British newspaper cuttings of unidentified origin and authorship

We are building a Wikipedia page for an elderly relative now in a care home. He is a British writer with over 50 books to his name. He has numerous newspaper cuttings in his files describing his travels and exploits from 1955 to the mid 1990s. However most of these have been cut out without attributing the publication or the journalist. Some may have been in The Times, others from local newspapers or specialist magazines. Some are accompanied by photographs but most not. Most are from British publications but some appear to be from overseas.

As they give an insight into his activities over the last 80+ years the information is being fed into his Wikipedia page. But are we allowed to upload the unidentified anonymous cuttings to provide references/citations to the Wikipedia entries? I have uploaded one as an example here: There is absolutely no indication of the date, publication, journalist, etc. But clearly of interest to anyone studying either the history of Vickers shipyard or the four individuals who were canvassing on behalf of the Tory Party at the time.

More generally are newspaper articles, whether identifiable or not, generally considered to be in the public domain?

Any thoughts or advice much appreciated. Thanks, Jon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbromwich (talk • contribs) 08:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonbromwich: No, newspaper articles, whether identifiable or not, are generally considered not to be in the public domain. Please see COM:CRT#United Kingdom for specifics as to when their copyrights expire in the UK.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UK Newspaper articles from 1955 are almost certainly still under copyright, so probably are not suitably licensed for uploading here. While articles don't need to be uploaded to be used as references, to be useful as a reference they would need details of the newspaper, date etc to allow verification.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this. It seems then that this little treasure trove of information cannot be used as references on Wikipedia (unless I spent the next few years tracking down every article and getting permissions which frankly I don't have the time to do). It's a shame because the newspaper cuttings shed all sorts of interesting light not just on the subject of the original article but also of many of his (well-known) contemporaries in the 1950s. And they show that, unlike many people, he moved from being a quite right wing Tory in his youth to a much more progressive internationalist in his middle age, probably as he experienced more of Africa's problems. I will still build his article on Wiki but won't be able to reference everything. Thanks for your help anyway, Jon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbromwich (talk • contribs) 07:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In order to reference something you are not required to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, this is now what referencing means. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 07:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonbromwich: You don't need to upload a newspaper article, to reference it. In fact, a copy of the article does not even need to be available online. Please see en:WP:REFB, en:WP:PUBLISHED, and en:WP:SAYWHERE for more specific information about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jonbromwich (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Thanks again for the information. Haviing read en:WP:SAYWHERE it seems that I could reference the article as I have personally seen it. Would the following act as a suitable reference? - Unattributable press cutting, c1953. Library of Guy Arnold, 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbromwich (talk • contribs) 15:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the article is from a reliable source (note that it needs to be reliable as defined by Wikipedia, not as defined by you or by others), then you should provide as much information about the source as you can when you cite it. You can find out more about this at en:WP:CITEHOW. For example, if the article is from an old newspaper, you should try to provide as much information about the paper as possible. Many major papers have archives; so, the more information you can provide about the paper you read, the better chance that someone might be able to find an archived version of it. Moreover, the more information you provide for a source, the more likely its going to be accepted by others. If the best you can do is say something such as "press clipping from Library of Guy Arnold", then the source is most likely going to be challenged by others; however, if you can provide the name of the paper, the date of paper, the page the article was on, the name of the author, etc., the more likely others are going to be willing to give the source the benefit of the doubt. If you need more help with this, you probably should ask at en:WP:RSN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US Government works

Per COM:PD and even en:WP:PD#U.S. government works, I think it's pretty much generally assumed that content created by an U.S. governmental employee in the course of their official duties is considered to be {{PD-USGov}}. However, I came across something at which seems to indicate that this might not necessarily be the case, particularly with respect to official government logos. There are another copyright exceptions listed here which seem to place restrictions on how such works can be used. For example, item 2 states:

You cannot use U.S. government trademarks or the logos of U.S. government agencies without permission. For example, you cannot use an agency logo or trademark on your social media page.

which is something that doesn't seem to be compatible with COM:L. There seem to be lots of US governmental agency/military logos uploaded to Commons as PD, so perhaps this "restriction" is not really something to be concerned about; however, I'm just curious as to whether it has always been like this or perhaps these exceptions are something just recently introduced. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly: Those are non-copyright restrictions. We don't directly concern ourselves with them (meaning that they are not sufficient reasons for file deletion). We do have some templates to deal with such restrictions, like {{Trademark}} and {{Personality}}. They are in Category:Non-copyright restriction templates.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Jeff G., see Commons:Non-copyright restrictions for more details. The template for the files possibly affected by the particular example you call out would be {{Trademarked}} or {{Insignia}}. See, for example, File:Seal of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.svg, which was the target of a takedown request from the FBI in 2010. More details about that takedown request can be found at CNN, WMF response, and the associated DR. —RP88 (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought that might be the case, but then the sentence "Unless the work falls under an exception, anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: ... " in the intro paragraph here seems to specifically refer to the exceptions listed in the subsequent section, which in turn seems to imply that the exceptions might be restrictions put in place by U.S. copyright laws. Anyway, I was just curious since the example given about using a logo on social media seems to be quite a restriction placed on how such a file can possibly be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trademarks are a separate area of law than copyright, and do not affect the determination of "free". If a blog violates a trademark, that is still a problem, free or not. There is such thing as trademark fair use, and I would imagine most of the time there is no confusion about the use on a blog, so doubtful that would run afoul of trademark laws. There are some specific laws that protect certain government insignias though, and while those are trademark-ish they are a little more nebulous. We do have the {{Insignia}} tag as a catchall for that type of law, which again does not affect "free" status but is something to be aware of. The government cannot use copyright law to enforce any restrictions, which is the main point. Logos etc. are not exempted from the copyright prohibition -- they are simply subject to additional types of rights, which are non-copyright restrictions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright of art forgeries

Are there any local or global regulations on copyright of art forgeries? Specifically, can copyright apply to such forgeries when the author (e.g. Han van Meegeren) by definition did not claim the authorship, posing for a public domain artist? Brandmeister (talk) 08:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Han van Meegeren died in 1947 so his works entered the public domain in most countries this year ({{PD-old-70}}). Unfortunately due to URAA only the ones published before 1923 are definitively PD in the US ({{PD-old-70-1923}}. Ex turpi causa non oritur actio may apply, and we have kept some images of illegal graffiti on this basis. However I wouldn't rely on this as it seems to be untested in US courts, and we must follow the precautionary principle. Guanaco (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His works were already in the public domain for most people: {{PD-old-50}}, {{PD-old-60}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would consider forgeries not under a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there any court cases that apply? If we reasonably believed they were made by a public domain artist, I think the law would protect us from a lawsuit, though we could possibly be forced to take it down. But the making of them isn't illegal, unlike graffiti, and I don't think the law would prevent the artist or his heirs from claiming the copyright to a work they made.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure I've heard any. If a forgery was a slavish copy of an existing work, you could get into arguments that it is merely a copy of the original, with no additional expression added, so no new copyright. But if it is a new painting just done in an artist's style, that would certainly create a new copyright. Making such a painting is not a crime, so it is different than graffiti that way. It is the later passing off as someone else's work which is the fraudulent part -- if marketed up front accurately, there would be no crime at all and of course it would be copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To make a credible claim that the work is authentic, it has to be really look alike. So I don't see how one could at the same time claims a copyright and claims that the work is authentic. A work which is just in the same style isn't a forgery by definition. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What makes it a forgery is the claim that it's by another author. It could be claimed that it is a known work or not.
However, for forgeries of a known work, I agree with Yann that the forgery is a faithful reproduction and rules for faithful reproductions should apply. That means that a forgery is not a creative work and does not attract copyright in most of the world (the exception may be the United Kingdom under the "sweat of the brow" doctrine).--Pere prlpz (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There have been many forgeries that have not been exact copies; File:Skating in Holland-J.B. Jongkind forgery.jpg, for example. I don't know about forgeries of a known work; the court cases on our side have been about photographs. Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts (1951) is old law, but says that mezzotint copies of paintings get a new copyright and has never been overturned, so from that precedent, I would assume a painted copy of a painting would get a new copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copies are derivatives of the original work, so the original work copyright applies. Unless the difference is beyond COM:TOO making it a new work.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With a derivative work there are (at least) two copyrights, that of the creator of the original work and that of the creator of the derivative work, see Commons:Derivative works. As Guanaco points out, we might disregard a forger's potential claim of copyright under an Ex turpi causa non oritur actio rationale, but this does not appear to be reliable. We should follow the precautionary principle and reject such images. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a forgery was photographically identical to an original in the public domain then {{PD-Art}} would apply, but we would only be able to judge this if we had a good photograph of the original, in which case it would be better to upload the photograph of the original. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it was a good forgery (that is, somebody successfully pretended that it was the original and an expert was needed to catch it), then it was photographically identical to its original. It's debatable if bad forgeries have any originality, but reasonably good forgeries don't).--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unlike forgeries of banknotes, most art forgeries are made in the style of the target artist but are not duplicates of authentic works. A forgery that fools art experts into thinking it is a newly-discovered work by a famous artist has high financial value, but a clone of the Mona Lisa would have low value. A painting in the style of another artist is an original creation, even if it passed off as something that it is not. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I understand correctly, van Meegeren made forgeries that weren't copies of existing works, but new works in the style of other painters such as Vermeer. Although he claimed that the paintings were made by those other painters, that should no longer matter, because he has later admitted the forgeries were his at a court of law, and this information is well known enough to us, so I think we must consider him the author and sole copyright owner of those paintings. – b_jonas 12:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Forgeries which are new paintings, and not copies of existing ones, are a completely different matter. In these cases, copyright applies when we know that they are forgeries. The initial question was not about these. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pokémon GO logo.svg

Is this simple enough for {{PD-simple}}. The File:International Pokémon logo.svg part of the logo might indeed be PD, but it's the "Go" part which might push this above the TOO. The Commons version of the logo is quite small, but a slightly different non-free version of the logo uploaded as en:File:Pokemon Go.png and ca:Fitxer:Pokemon Go.png shows the "Go" element to be kinda complex with stars and an outline of the earth in addition to the red and white Pokeball. Maybe it's because of its small size the the Commons file can be kept, but the reason I'm asking about this is because the English local file of the logo has been nominated for deletion at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 August 31#File:Pokemon Go.png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Marchjuly: The Commons version is really missing that detail.
If the Commons version is not official, that would be reason enough to hold on to the fair use files. Also, it should be judged by COM:TOO#Japan because Nintendo is Japanese. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this were a PNG or other raster format, downscaling might make it ineligible for copyright because the copyrightable elements simply aren't there anymore. With SVG, the small size makes no difference for Commons because you can readily upscale it to see all the detail. Guanaco (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One question: does the Japanese law consider this logo copyrighted in any way? George Ho (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]