Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/09

insource:/culturehis15benn/

Seeming PD us-no-notice/PD us-no-renewal. No apparent notice in work, and copyrght.gov gave no records for title, authors or museum. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a copyright notice at the beginning of the book by The American Museum of Natural History. 1949 for the first edition. 1960 for the second edition. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, How did I miss it? :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

And there is a 1976 renewal for the 1949 edition [1]. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Erasing the part of the question to which I replied makes the answer look out of context. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Noted. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

License determination: File:The role of the teamsters union in the construction industry. (IA roleofteamstersu00foga).pdf

No notice found on work, and no works by this title listed on copyright.gov for the given author. Was updated to no-notice in good faith, but wanted a second view. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems alright - given that this is a 1977 work, later registration would not have saved its copyright anyway. As a thesis, the only remaining doubt is whether it has been "published", but deposition in a university library would presumably have been sufficient. Felix QW (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

License determination: insource:/ui1960univ/

1960 publication, no apparent notice, and no renewals found so far. -

• File:Remember to order the Pepsi, 1960.jpg is an advert with seperate copyrights. - How do you check renewals for those?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Where do you see the copyright notice on the advert? Felix QW (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I am from the United Kingdom, and I'm used to things having a copyright unless confirmed otherwise.

For something like Pepsi ads a check for renewals is advised, as they are sufficiently large as unlikely not to have compilied with the relevant formalities. I've sometimes had other contributors find renewals for non-noticed artworks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Advertisements in particular were not covered under a copyright notice for the entire collective work (the magazine or newspaper). Thus, if there was no copyright notice on the advertisement itself, it became public domain immediately ({{PD-US-no notice advertisement}}). If there was a notice, I think you could look into either the artwork or commercial prints sections for renewals if it was pre-1964. But if no notice and before 1978, it's public domain (unless derivative of a still-copyrighted work somehow). {{PD-US-1978-89 advertisement}} is for ads with no copyright notice between 1978 and 1989, which requires an additional check to make sure it wasn't registered (though those records would be online at www.copyright.gov). This particular ad is signed (though I can't quite read it), so it's not anonymous, so non-shorter-term countries would protect it for 50pma or 70pma or whatever. But, country of origin is the U.S., so Commons would only care about the lack of copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Creative Commons licenses, with extra conditions against usage on certain websites

Can users license images on this page under CC BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY-SA-4.0 licenses, but then add the condition that the images must not be shared on social media?

For example, User:HeinrichStuerzl/Licence states that It is not permitted to upload this file to Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and many other social networks! This file has been released under a license that is incompatible with the terms of service and licensing terms of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc., while publishing under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license.

Creative Commons have stated in 2020 (here) that some social media's TOS may not be compatible with non-commercial licenses, although they say they don't necessarily agree with that notion. However, non-commercial licenses are not allowed on Wikimedia anyway, so that doesn't matter. If I understand Creative Commons licenses, you cannot randomly add extra conditions, and still be acceptable as a license on Wikimedia.

I actually asked HeinrichStuerzl about this in 2021,[2] but never got a reply. I have now run into the same problem again, with an image by J_budissin (who appears to prohibit uploads to Facebook, but seems to be fine with Twitter and YouTube). That's why I decided to now ask about it here. Renerpho (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

We already have had this discussion countless times, and even recently. Please read the archives first. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I looked on the current version of this page, but not in the archive. Sorry about that!

Some relevant links I could find: meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/CC_BY-SA_licenses_and_social_media, and the recent (mid-August) discussion No Twitter/YouTube/Facebook Template, and the template deletion requests [3], [4], [5], and [4 (ongoing)].

So, does this mean we should delete User:HeinrichStuerzl/Licence? And what about the statements on individual files, should those be changed in bulk? Renerpho (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No. As I said we discussed this recently, and there was no consensus to delete this statement. Yann (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You didn't say that. Anyway, based on my impression of the discussions I have read, I already went ahead and have nominated it for deletion (before I have seen your reply). Renerpho (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Here's the TL;DR: given the terms of the license, a "prohibition" like this really just amounts to a strongly worded request. It does seem likely that if someone posts one of these to (say) Facebook, they are not themselves violating the license by the posting, but under Facebook's terms of use, they are granting Facebook rights that they have no right to grant. The general consensus (which I don't particularly like myself) is that the third-party illegitimate grant of rights to Facebook or other social media is none of our business, and we can't really prohibit it. In theory if FB (or whoever) then used these illegitimately granted rights, the copyright-holder could sue them, but not the third party. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jmabel, but that doesn't convince me at all. I'm going with Nosferattus in the discussion here. Renerpho (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not advocating this; I'm just saying that it is the current consensus, over the half a dozen or so times this has come up. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This oft-repeated doublespeak about "It is not permitted" being a "request" is absurd. "It is not permitted" is a prohibition, not a request. And regardless, the original question here is can "conditions against usage" be added, not "requests against usage". The two are very different things. Nosferattus (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"It is not permitted" is clarified by the following sentence, where it is the site policy of Facebook etc. which is the thing doing the prohibition, not the copyright license as given. It's pretty clear to me that the statement is not part of the copyright license itself. It could be worded better, but given the following sentence I can't see any way to construe that as part of the license. It's in a completely separate box showing it is addressing a different concern. The main problem, is that if someone uploads it to Facebook (legal per the license), but then re-uses it under Facebook's presumed terms (without also following the CC rules) they are likely committing a copyright infringement. Unfortunately it's up to the uploaders here to enforce that, not anyone in between, which is a continuing aggravation for people who upload works here. Informing re-users about that state of affairs, and asking to not make it worse, should be fine. The site policy of Facebook etc. could change at any time of course, which could make the statement incorrect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Informing re-users about that state of affairs, and asking to not make it worse, should be fine. Yes, of course. That's not what the user page currently does, but if it is changed accordingly, I'd be happy with that. Renerpho (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I agree that the situation with Facebook (and Instagram, YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest, Tik-Tok and pretty much every content platform on the internet) is a problem. The way to address that problem is not, however, with a scary looking legal notice in the Licensing section of file pages. I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but we're not going to change the fact that the entire internet is now defined by content capture and monetization. The open internet is dead. If we start pre-emptively walling ourselves off from the rest of the internet because of that, we're not only throwing the free-licensing baby out with the bathwater, we're dooming ourselves to irrelevance. The way to fight non-compliance with licensing is by educating reusers, not scaring them away (or if that fails, DMCA notices). Nosferattus (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Threshold of originality in Netherlands

Hello!

I recently wanted to upload a vector version of File:Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.png, but as I always do, I checked COM:TOO Netherlands (because I'm a good boy :)

However, it is very vague, with statements such as own, original character [bearing] the personal mark of the maker and [shapes] that are so trivial or banal, that one cannot show any creative labor behind it of any kind whatsoever.

I cannot figure out what Dutch copyright law says is and isn't copyrighted in this regard, due to this vague and very subjective language. Can I upload it? Should I list the aforementioned File:Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.png for deletion if it's under copyright?

--QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 22:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This particular logo was designed by Mevis & Van Deursen, as you can read here: https://www.ad.nl/show/nieuwe-huisstijl-en-logo-voor-stedelijk-museum~a2a99708/ (I hope you can, I have some access to this newspaper). Ellywa (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be surprised if that met the threshold of originality in any country. Nosferattus (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

insource:/britishfreshwate00gurn_0/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=Search&profile=default&search=insource%3A%2Fbritishfreshwate00gurn_0%2F&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1

1933 printing , London publication (original is 1931?), Author died in 1950. The concern here is a US publication or URAA restored copyright.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I see no evidence of simultaneous US publication in the digitised work itself, which would imply that US copyright had been restored in 1996 and will expire in 2027 or 2029, depending on whether it was first published in 1931 or 1933. 1933 seems the correct date to me, since the preface is dated December 1932, making publication before 1933 unlikely. Felix QW (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Volume I is 1931, volume III is 1933. Pages of volume I with: "insource:/britishfreshwate00gurn -_0". -- Asclepias (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we know what happened to Vol II ? If it's expired it would be nice to have in a few years time. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Internet Archive document britishfreshwate00gurn 0. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I checked the Catalog of Copyright Entries (at IA) for Copepoda and did get a few hits, but not for this work. So apparently it wasn't registered for US copyright, and the URAA applied in 1996. --Rosenzweig τ 18:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to raise a new DR or re-open an existign one based on new information uncovered? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/britishfreshwate00gurn 0/. --Rosenzweig τ 20:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

License determination: insource:/annualinventoryr159mcwi/

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=Search&profile=default&search=insource%3A%2Fannualinventoryr159mcwi%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1

Combination of Federal and State authors, imprint is Federal. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Doubtful images

• 
  I doubt the "author"/uploader Salento81 shot the pic in 1904. OK
• 
  1825, so likely PD, but was it really published before 1928? OK
• 
  Before 1927, but same as above about publishing date; lacking a copyright status about photographer life OK
• 
  Same as above OK
• 
  Before 1927, unknown photographer, no data about first publishing date OK
• 
  Again no data about first publishing date; source link rot OK

Are they OK? The descriptions seem incomplete.-- Carnby (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Carnby: Could you be more specific about your concern (which I assume is about copyright given where you've posted this)? Incomplete descriptions are not usually (really, ever) a copyright concern. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I've add a brief ratio for each image.--Carnby (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the Haitian portrait, we presume publication for artwork before 1928, and the 1825 date makes it safely beyond copyright anywhere. Abzeronow (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The Isadora Duncan picture is the sort of thing that certainly would have been shot for a commercial purpose, and that I cannot imagine not having been one or another way published within months.

We run into this sort of thing all the time on older photos. No, we can't be absolutely certain of publishing history, but professional photographers did not, as a rule, take pictures like this to stick them in a drawer. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

No real issue here. Only File:P D Ouspenski(y).gif and File:Renata Tebaldi with Dina.jpg are not obviously in the public domain. So there are not "Doubtful images", whatever that may mean. I completed some of the licenses. Yann (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Ag Andras hasn't edited in over a decade, so we are unlikely to hear from them. - Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

An image from Indian Space Research Organization

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

I want to upload an image from this pdf for the use in my article PSLV-C2 in Gujarati Wikipedia. However, I am not sure if the copyright laws allow it or not. May I have the expert's opinion on this please! Dinesh (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a continuation of a discussion at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&oldid=798200329#I_want_to_upload_a_picture_.png_and_include_in_my_article_in_Gujarati_wikipedia. While I agree you are right to take this to VP/C, and in fact I told you to do that, I also told you to mention what discussion had already taken place and to post the relevant links. In particular, as I said there, " https://www.isro.gov.in/ has a copyright symbol and says "All rights reserved", which would suggest that the material there is not in the public domain." Still seeking expert opinion, of course, but when doing that one should show what we've learned so far. - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Dineshjk: Except the copyright policy specifically permits you to upload such material, and that overrides any "All rights reserved message". Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand that it means that I can upload but I should acknowledge. May I know some standard format of the message that I should include on the page of the image? Dinesh (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't there the common issue with a lack of permission to make derivative works though? It stipulates the material to be "reproduced accurately", and does not make any positive statement regarding derivatives anywhere else either. Felix QW (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

There is the same statement for many images from the Indian government. Yann (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Free use from Argentina

BEGIN moved from Commons:Help desk
Hi, I'd wish to upload an image of Argentine serial killer Robledo Puch, to replace the image of Wikipedia with an actual mugshot of his. The mugshot is sourced here as being taken in the 1970s.

That means under law 11.723 art. 34 that the image is under free license in Argentina, as the image of Puch in Wikipedia right now. But I don't know how to upload it because the options do not include Public Domain Argentina and I don't have the ability of the user who uploaded the current image of Puch.

Can anybody help me? Many thanks. CoryGlee (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
END moved from Commons:Help desk - Jmabel ! talk 15:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: I think I managed to upload it rightly. Can anybody check on it and tell me whether it was correctly tagged? CoryGlee (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, the issue is that the tag asserting public domain status in Argentina says that 25 years must have passed from creation to render the photograph public domain in Argentina, which means its copyright would have expired by 1999 but still subsisted in 1996, the key date for determining whether a work has been copyrighted in the US by the URAA.

However, there seem to be some subtleties there which I don't fully understand.

The Argentine law actually only provides for 20 years of protection but seems to be superseded by Art. 7 of the Berne Convention that provides for 25 years for photographs, which stipulates that

It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to determine the term of protection of photographic works and that of works of applied art in so far as they are protected as artistic works; however, this term shall last at least until the end of a period of twenty-five years from the making of such a work.

COM:Argentina concludes that this only applies for "artistic" photographs (which may exclude mugshots), but in the context of Article 2 of the Berne Convention, which discusses when works of applied art are covered as artistic works, it seems to me more likely that in so far as they are protected as artistic works refers only to qualify the works of applied art named second in the clause.

I am sorry to make this so complicated — it really doesn't help that Argentina has not incorporated the terms of the Berne convention into national law more than 50 years after joining... Felix QW (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the Berne Convention is relevant for Argentine photographs published first within their own borders. Wikipedia says: "The Berne Convention only requires member states to obey its rules for works published in other member states – not works published within its own borders. Thus member nations may lawfully introduce domestic copyright laws that have elements prohibited by Berne (such as registration formalities), so long as they only apply to their own authors." It should be relevant dealing with the exploitation of foreign works within Argentina (where they should respect the minimum copyright length imposed by Berne), but I really doubt it's relevant in this case in any capacity. --Lugamo94 (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This sounds convincing to me, but then we should really address this at COM:Argentina and the PD-Argentina photo template. There seems to have been some discussion at template talk:PD-AR-Photo as well, but it does not seem to have gone anywhere. Felix QW (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Do you have any insight on how the Berne Convention interacts with Argentinian copyright terms for Argentinian authors, in particular when applied for the purposes of determining URAA restoration? It is a strange situation, I think. Felix QW (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Logos of Polish political parties

Several logos of Polish political parties are labelled as public domain with the rationale

This file is in the public domain because logos of political parties in Poland are considered public information per II SAB/Wa 714/15, and are thus ineligible for copyright.

To me, this does not seem to follow from COM:Poland, and I am somehow unable to access the document at the link provided. An example can be seen here. Does anyone have any insight or opinion on this? Felix QW (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

In the particular case linked, I'd be surprised if it was copyrightable on any basis. Looks like they took a very old image and added text. - Jmabel ! talk 21:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, maybe it was a bad example. Many of the modern ones look rather simple, but then again COM:TOO Poland claims a low threshold of originality, so that might still be an issue. Felix QW (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

uploads by user:Px820

Resolved

I tagged init {{Npd}}. the tags removed at the later. I tagged because the files uploaded under CC-BY-SA v3.0/GFDL 1.2+. however the website uncrear license information. what should I do? should I submit undelation requests? thanks. --eien20 (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I have already left a note on your talk page. See Special:Permalink/798687217#Uploads by Px820. We don't need evidence of a free license at the website since these uploads are from 2006 and this user is clearly the owner of that website. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought they understand of copyright(license) is not enough. but my idea is different. I'm sorry for confusing you. --eien20 (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Logos of universities and colleges in Indonesia

A lot of the files in Category:Logos of universities and colleges in Indonesia are licensed with {{PD-IDGov}}. Are these files really PD? If not, I guess all that are above COM:TOO Indonesia should be deleted. Jonteemil (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Is that image copyright free?

Hello, I have a question concerning this picture of Elbridge A. Colby (https://www.defense.gov/About/Biographies/Biography/article/1230279/elbridge-a-colby/) which is published on the website of the U.S. Department of Defense. Is it {{PD-USGov}}? What about right to your own image/privacy protection? Thanks. TheAmerikaner (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is {{PD-USGov-DOD}} as it appears to be an official portrait photograph. {{Personality rights}} is a non-copyright matter, and probably not needed for an official photograph, but you can add it if you think it needs it. Abzeronow (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this release good enough for the Trump (et al) mugshots?

https://fcsoga.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FCSO-Letter-of-Affirmation-Booking-Photos-8.21.23.pdf Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

If you mean to post them on Commons, clearly not. It doesn't explicitly allow derivative works (and explicitly prohibits certain derivative works). - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing what it disallows other than blackmail attempts involving forcing someone to pay to have the photos taken down. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me it is some blanket release form? How is it connected to Trump mugshot. Borysk5 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Borysk5: looks like you are right on the lack of there being no explicit prohibition; I had misread that to prohibit altering the photograph by removing the name, definitely an error on my part. But it still is not explicit permission for derivative works. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Related article here: [6] Ixfd64 (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Ringwallanlage Spreitzenberg bei Munderfing Planskizze von Hugo von Preen.jpg

This file seems to be too old to be copyrightable but I can't seem to find what license fits? Should it be {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-US-expired}}? Jonteemil (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

{{PD-old-auto-expired}} with the deathyear=1941 parameter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Jonteemil (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Михаил Антонович Круковский.png

Is it fine when the uploader claims he is the copyright holder of the 1930 photo and demands to credit him in further publications? Komarof (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Also: File:Семья Круковских (1928).png. --Komarof (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

He might be the copyright-holder (could have inherited it) but is certainly not the author. Yes, this would be worth sorting out.

Pinging @Roman Kubanskiy - Jmabel ! talk 20:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Jmabel, as far as I understand, this whole chain of statements looks very doubtful. First of all, the user indicates the author “presumably”, without basing his assumptions on anything, i.e. determines the author roughly and randomly. Further, if we accept that the author is exactly the person he names, then he has no rights to claim that this image is not in the public domain, since this parameter is determined not by him, but by the laws of the Russian Federation. Then, owning a paper copy of a photograph does not mean owning copyright to the original work. Therefore, without providing evidence of copyright, the user's demand to indicate his name is completely unreasonable. Also @AntiCompositeNumber and Taivo: as users involved in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Roman Molodyko. --Komarof (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If the author is Sofya Krukovskaya (died 1943), then the uploader has right to claim "not in the public domain", because it is still not in PD. Uploader claimed not to be just owner of physical copy of the photo, but as well copyright holder, and copyright holder not because he owns the photo, but because he is photographer's heir. Taivo (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Taivo: Firstly, if is the keyword here, because there's no any evidence that she is the author. Secondly, could you kindly explain, how did you come to the statement it is still not in PD, while pma 70+4 for people from USSR, who died in 1943, expired in 2018?? --Komarof (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I made an error in calculation. You are right, per {{Uzbekistan}} and {{PD-Russia}} point 1 the photo is in public domain due to age. Taivo (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Weird

I don't quite get what is going on here. The uploader claims that the image is "rechtefrei", which is quite obviously nonsense to begin with, there certainly is an Urheberrecht to consider.

Now the question is, who is the Urheberrecht holder? By German law, it can only be the photographer. So, is the uploader the photographer? Is the uploader by the nickname of MarkolfN identical with the person named as "author", Kai Wolters? We have no indication of that.

It gets worse though. For one thing, on the theater website given as "source", I see no indication that they publish their pictures as "rechtefrei".

On this website, the image information has a totally different name (Björn Hickmann) as the copyright holder.

Not sure what to make of this. --2003:C0:8F2F:8600:9CD4:439A:989C:1A28 22:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @MarkolfN as uploader. - Jmabel ! talk 00:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I already did that, see above. Not much hope that he will see it, having been active for two days in 2009 only. --2003:C0:8F4A:A300:A54A:A6A0:1706:27B2 10:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Question about tagging for revision deletion

I'm looking at File:林作.jpg, and there are two times where the original image was overwritten. I'm unsure about the copyright status of the image that was used to overwrite the original image, and I suspect it's non-free. Do the criteria for speedy deletion apply to revisions just as they do for whole file pages and, if so, would I need to tag and wait the seven days before deleting the old revisions as lacking evidence of permission? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• That's a much-uploaded image by a persistent vandal. I'll kill it. - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I blocked the vandal indefinitely as sockpuppet, cleaned file history and protected the file against upload for a year. Taivo (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Redneck Revolt

I'm looking at this website, from which some images on Commons are sourced. The footer states ALL CONTENT AVAILABLE FOR ATTRIBUTED REPRINT UNDER CREATIVE COMMONS LICENSE, but it doesn't specify any particular version of the license. "Available for attributed reprint" could just as easily apply to the CC BY-ND licenses as it could to CC BY licenses (it's consistent with both), but it doesn't exactly clarify whether or not the creation of derivative works are permitted in its vague licensing statement.

Are images sourced from this website under the terms specified above suitable to upload under COM:L? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• Sounds like it would be appropriate to contact the site and ask for a clarification. They look pretty easy to get hold of. - Jmabel ! talk 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status on Vietnam war photo

Interested in uploading a Vietnam War photo, wondering if the 'Make War, Not Love' photo (found here) is potentially in the Public Domain? From the research I conducted, it comes from the Bettmann Archive held by Getty Images, here. That alone doesn't necessarily mean it is copyrighted, see Category:Bettmann Archive. The only example of an author I found here, under 'Bill Hall'... who could have been a US soldier which would make the photo {{PD-US-Army}}? Curious if anyone has more insight about this photo. Thanks. PascalHD (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This website identifies Bill Hall as a UPI photographer. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

So Press photographer it is. That narrows it down to the possibility of {{PD-US-no-notice}} if I can find such. Thank you. PascalHD (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting SOHO images once again

Imagery from w:Solar and Heliospheric Observatory have historically been deleted here for perceived copyright violation; however, SOHO data are released under a Creative Commons Zero license per the NASA w:Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Policy Document SPD-41a. Previous discussions regarding their copyright status, in particular Revisiting revisiting SOHO images (which is a continuation of Revisiting SOHO images), have ended with no consensus. This most recent discussion went stale following disagreement as to whether the SMD's definition of data covers SOHO imagery. So, asking again, is imagery considered data and therefore released under CC0? (Arguments supporting imagery as data were given in Revisiting revisiting SOHO images and have yet to be refuted.) CoronalMassAffection (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Content on https://scratch.mit.edu/users/cartoonnetwork

I've noticed that Cartoon Network (i'll be refering it as CN) has an official account on Scratch, where they post projects featuring characters from their shows and encouraging other users to remix them. Per Scratch's TOS, all user-generated content is under the CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic license, excluding Scratch trademarks and other third-party materials ({{Cc-by-sa-2.0-Scratch}}). I wonder though, would that mean all original content on the CN account be under CC and, therefore, be OK to use on Commons? My main concern is mostly with the "third-party materials" exception, but I would like to hear anybody elses thoughts. SergioFLS (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@SergioFLS: I think by "third-party" they mean "stuff that the Scratch user didn't make". So I think it would be ok to reproduce material that they have posted to scratch, since CNN has created these materials. And we know this is the official CN account, through that link and this YouTube video. Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Matr1x-101: Thanks for your reply! I have uploaded File:Ice Bear (We Bare Bears).svg in hopes that it gets a sucessful review. Once it passes I might try uploading more content from there (and probably also exposing myself to speedys/DRs ). SergioFLS (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Loads of doubtful uploads

Hi, can someone please check these uploads? Many or most of them seem to be posters or other work by graphic artists, so they would normally be copyrighted. @May ayim commons, FYI. --2003:C0:8F3C:C400:74C8:361F:97E3:1EC5 17:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Last warning sent, most files deleted. Yann (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Is an screenshot under GODL-India?

So at s:Page:A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources.pdf/74, an image was deleted due to being a copyvio (s:File:Figure 2 CEC LOR Interface.jpg). However I have found info suggesting this screenshot is under GODL. [7] says "The Consortium for Educational Communication, popularly known as CEC, is one of the Inter University Centres set up by the University Grants Commission of India", meaning this agency (and therefore this website) was set up with "public funds by various agencies of the Government of India" (quoting section 3 of the GODL). Therefore, doesn't GODL apply? Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The GODL-India application is very uncertain. We need more information from some legal experts from India. Yann (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

GODL itself is very, very wishy-washy in its terminology IMO. Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 17:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

US copyright questions. Use of contents from websites of cities in Oregon as "public domain"

I know the photos by Federal government is in the public domains, but I am feeling uncertain about this creative application of State law with regard to the use of local government's websites. this photo asserts the photo is public domains citing https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_276a.368 However, when you visit the city's website at [8], it says right on the landing page © Copyright 2018-2023

What does it mean when it comes to treating any and all information from local cities of Oregon as "public domain"? Graywalls (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• Photos are not obviously "data." We'd need a clarification from them that says they are. Also, the statement cited is specific to "the web portal maintained under ORS 276A.353 (Chief Data Officer)" which presumably has nothing to do with a site maintained by a city within that state. So clearly this is not a basis for this photo to be PD. - Jmabel ! talk 03:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Kyriakos Pittakis.jpg

File:Kyriakos Pittakis.jpg was uploaded in 2007 and is currently being used by multiple projects. en:File:Kyriakos Pittakis Portrait.jpg is essentially the same image uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content in May 2023. If the Commons file is OK as currently licensed or just in need of a licensing tweak, then there's no need for the local non-free file. On the other hand, if the Commons files is incorrectly licensed and something that can't be fixed, then it should be deleted since Commons doesn't accept fair use content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

A photo of somebody who died in 1863 can be assumed to be {{PD-old-assumed}} absent contradictory evidence. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The non-free upload was a case of being (over?)safe during the Featured Article process for Pittakis's English Wikipedia page. We have a definite publication in 1937: it's almost certainly an official portrait, probably from the 1840s, and the contemporary images of other archaeologists in that publication tended to come from newspapers. I couldn't actually find the earlier publication (my strong suspicion is that it would have appeared in a newspaper obituary, but records of Greek newspapers from that period aren't particularly complete): however, the chances of the photo having been truly unpublished for a century (and so having survived in physical form in a desk drawer) and then being found in good quality in 1937 seem pretty remote. As an anonymous/corporate publication, the 1937 album became PD in Greece in 2007: the only question-mark was over whether we could demonstrate its US status to the satisfaction of the reviewers over there. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: While I understand that featured article reviews tend to be quite thorough and may even involve some sort of time limitation, it probably would've better to try and sort the Commons image out first before uploading a non-free version of it per en:WP:FREER and en:WP:ITSFA. Even if this particular image turned out to be incorrectly licensed, it seems more than reasonable to expect that some other image of Pittakis could be found that could be shown to be PD given that he died in 1863. Even an anonymous unpublished image would likely be PD in the US 120 years after creation per COM:HIRTLE which means en:Template:PD-old-assumed would probably have worked for English Wikipedia. There is now a situation where the non-free file you uploaded is being used in en:Kyriakos Pittakis, but the Commons file is being used in en:Archaeological Society of Athens and en:Ephor (archaeology) in addition to being used by other non-English Wikipedia projects, which is not really desirable at all. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

it probably would've better to try and sort the Commons image out first: as it happens, I tried quite hard to solve the licensing query and to find another portrait of Pittakis. As far as I could find, this is it. The image we have here is actually a crop of a larger one, but every image of Pittakis I have found in print is one way or another a derivative of the same source. As it was published in 1937, we couldn't use the unpublished justification: per Hirtle, we've got it published abroad from 1928 through 1977, not PD at home at the URAA date, which would make it not PD in the US if that were indeed the earliest publication.

If someone is able to do some digging and demonstrate conclusively that the Commons image is PD in the US, it should be fairly trivial to delete the fair-use version on Wikipedia as redundant: if we can't, I'd agree with King of Hearts above that the Commons version has a strong enough presumption of PD that it would be overzealous to delete it, but that level of charitability would not have cleared the bar for an FA nomination at Wikipedia. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist: If the image is OK for Commons, then it's certainly OK for use on Wikipedia and the non-free one you uploaded fails en:WP:NFCC#1 and would need to be deleted regardless of how that might possibly affect the FA status of the article. Non-free images aren't allowed just to improve the article's chances of passing an FA review and a FA review doesn't supersede Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. If you thought the licensing of the Commons file was a problem, you could've asked about it here or started a COM:DR to seek input from others. Then, if it turned your hunch was correct and the file ended up deleted, you could've uploaded it locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content. On the other hand, if the file was kept and the consensus was it was OK, then there would've been no justification for a non-free one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that - useful guidance. I don't think I can prove that the image is OK for Commons: very happy now for anyone who can move that discussion on to chip in in either direction. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Both photos appear to be crops of this image, which has to be at least 160 years old given that Pittakis died in 1863. It seem acceptable to upload the full photo based upon what King of Hearts posted above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

File:WDFW Logo.svg

I think this logo is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}} but maybe works by state governments in the US are PD by default? As is the case for works by the national government. Jonteemil (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• No such default. Washington State departments are a mixed bag on this. The source page says, "© 2023 All rights reserved" so I would presume it is copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I see. It would seem someone already has DR'd the file. Jonteemil (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

{{PD-MEGov}}

I've opened a discussion at Template talk:PD-MEGov that relates to works that the State of Maine has placed into the public domain. I'm notifying this board, as there seems to be low participation at the template's talk page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Photo of an article taken from old British newspaper (1942)

To complete an historical page in Wikipedia, I would like to upload the photo of an unsigned article cut out from an old British newspaper dated September 1942, but I need to be sure that it can be considered to be in the public domain.

In [this page] of the Oxford University dedicated to the copyright issues of newspapers and other online news sources from the 17th – 21st centuries, they say that "According to British Library guidance, if the article is unsigned, copyright expires 70 years after publication; if the article is signed, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author".

The article is in fact unsigned, hence I suppose that its copyright should be expired in September 2012. Can I proceed with the upload on Commons, or are there other limitations?

Thank you very much and best regards. Centoesettecento (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Centoesettecento: No idea what you mean by "dedicated to the copyright," but this is probably public domain in the UK on the basis you state. Presumably a British newspaper would never have renewed U.S. copyright (I've never heard of one doing so) so in the U.S. it should be {{PD-US-not renewed}}. - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, wait: are we screwed by URAA here? Because it would have still been in copyright in the UK in 1996, so it might not be OK in the U.S. until 2037. Would someone more expert than me weigh in? - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I think "dedicated to the copyright" just means it's their copyright guidance page. Unfortunately, we probably are screwed by the URAA here unless there's evidence of simultaneous publication in the U.S. (within 30 days).

@Centoesettecento: If you can find evidence that the newspaper (or that specific article, e.g. if it was reprinted) was distributed in the U.S. in September 1942 (or otherwise within 30 days of U.K. publication, if you have a more precise date) and its copyright wasn't renewed, you can upload the article.

• Tag it as {{PD-US-not-renewed}} and add the evidence that it was simultaneously published in the U.S. and therefore counts as a U.S. work.
• From Commons:Licensing: In cases where a work is simultaneously published in multiple countries, the "country of origin" is the country which grants the shortest term of copyright protection, per the Berne Convention.
• This means you don't have to worry about U.K. copyright, but just to be thorough, you can also tag the work as {{PD-UK-unknown}}.

If not, we should assume the article is still in copyright. For the record, copyright in the U.S. and the U.K. goes off of calendar year, so the article's U.K. copyright expired on 1 January 2013, not September 2012. You might want to check out Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights and Wikipedia:Non-free content. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help! Centoesettecento (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

What tag to use for File:Cuthbert Christy 1902.png

This looks like an anonymous work that wasn't published until later (as late as 2002), but it is over 120 years old. I'm also not sure what country it was created in. But I can't find a copyright tag that fits. A little help? The Quirky Kitty (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@The Quirky Kitty: This image may still be copyrighted in the US. (Regardless of the country of origin, material must be in the public domain or freely licensed in the US as well in order to be accepted on Commons.) Copyright terms in the US are complicated, but I think this bit would apply:

Works created before 1978 and first published after or in 1978 are protected for the earlier of 95 years from publication or registration for copyright or 120 years from creation (for anonymous or corporate works) or 70 years after death of the creator for known authors; if it was published in 1978–2001, that copyright is extended to December 31, 2047 if it's shorter. (Thus no works first published with permission of the copyright holder between 1978 and 2001 in the US are out of copyright.)

The book cited as a source has a copyright date of 1992, so assuming this is the first publication of the photo I believe this photo is still copyrighted. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 09:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I should have looked at the Hirtle Chart more thoroughly instead of assuming it was public domain. Looks like the law was very counterintuitive until 2003. On the other hand, this was recently decided: Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Allow_old_orphan_works. The consensus was to assume publication soon after creation for old works. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If it had actually been published for the first time between 1989 and 2002, that would indeed be an issue. However, publication is both quite lax in that for early publication, it would be sufficient if the photographers had handed a copy to their client, and quite strict in that even printing it in a book does not count as publication unless the copyright owner gives their consent.

I actually have access to the book source via my university library and, surprisingly for an academic work, I cannot find any indication of the provenance or at least the immediate source of the image in the book. So it seems at least dubious to me that the book's author would have ascertained the copyright holder, asked them for permission to publish the image and then not even mention or acknowledge it anywhere in the final book. On balance, I would think {{PD-US-unpublished}} to be reasonable, given that any early publication date would strengthen rather than weaken the claim to PD status. Of course, one could always try and somehow the author, Maryinez Lyons, to find out more. Felix QW (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Quirky Kitty. I did a little poking around online and I think I can cast some additional light on this:

• The author of the book from which your original photo was taken may have found it in some intermediary publication, but I suspect the ultimate source is a photo in the Cuthbert Christy papers in the archives of the Royal Commonwealth Society in Cambridge. Although there's no scan of the photo online, the archive record describes it as "a view showing Cuthbert Christy seated at a table with a microscope in front of him. In the foreground a dog sits near Dr Christy's skinning table. The 'laboratory' is on the open verandah of a house." That's a pretty accurate description of the full, uncropped version of this photo.
• The archive record led me to Christy's book Big Game and Pygmies, published by Macmillan in both London and New York in 1924, where a very similar photograph is reproduced opposite p. 8. It was clearly taken at the same time (same camera position, same clothing, same dog), and the photographer is credited as a Mr. Doggett. The archive record provides no information about Doggett, not even a first name, but there is no doubt that it was Walter Doggett, a naturalist who accompanied the Anglo-German boundary expedition to Uganda in 1902, and who died there in 1904 in an accident during a river crossing. This gives us the photographer's name and death date, which are important for copyright outside the US.
• Both photos can be considered published. That's obviously the case for the one printed in Big Game and Pygmies, but it's also true for the one you originally asked about, since as Felix QW points out, the fact that the photographer gave copies to other people (to Christy himself at the very least) counts as publication for copyright purposes. Since the photographer died in 19021904, and the photos were published before 1928 in the US, they can be tagged with {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1904}}, which declares them as public domain everywhere in the world (= published before 1928 in the US, and almost 100 years after the death of the photographer elsewhere). I've updated the information on the Commons page of your original photo accordingly.
• I have also uploaded the second photo, the one reproduced in Big Game and Pygmies, as File:Cuthbert Christy in Uganda in 1902.jpg. If your main goal is to illustrate the Wikipedia article on Christy, this one is a better choice, I think, because Christy is turned toward the camera and you can see more of his face. In addition to the full photo I've also uploaded this crop suitable for use in that article if you want to replace the existing image.

— Cheers,Choliamb (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(Edited to correct the year of Doggett's death from 1902 to 1904. Choliamb (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC))

Nicely done. I did find an obit on Mr. Doggett here, which mentions he was an "admirable photographer" along with his other naturist stuff. So yes, it would have to be him. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing all this sleuthing and even coming up with a better picture. My goal wasn't to illustrate the article but simply move this image to Commons. It was originally on Wikipedia as fair use. But I will change the image on his page because it's indeed a better portrait. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I created Category:Walter Grimwood Doggett, the WD item, and Creator:Walter Grimwood Doggett. Yann (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

StB works

Are works by the former secret service of Czechoslovakia in the public domain? There are interesting photographs created by the organization, and apparently held by the governmental agency Security Services Archive (Q47979470). HeminKurdistan (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Presumably these are 1) anonymous and 2) not previously published (do say if you have evidence to the contrary). Com:Czechoslovakia says "{{PD-Czechoslovakia-anon}} works first published without a claim of authorship in Czechoslovakia come into the public domain fifty years after publication". There is no mention there of different rules for government works. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Thanks for the answer. Two points here: 1. The anonymous photographer was hired and was on a mission for StB, wouldn't it make the creator a known legal entity? (like the terms of Template:PD-USGov) 2. The photographs seem to be made publicly available for the first time by the current government of the Czech Republic (one of the two immediate successors to the Czechoslovakia), would it make them subject to Template:PD-CzechGov rather than Czechoslovakia law? Thanks, HeminKurdistan (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The current Czech law will certainly apply to such works and they may be in public domain as "other such works where there is public interest in their exclusion from copyright protection". Ruslik (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Template:PD-Yugoslavia

Hello! Above PD license has a criteria that reads c) a photograph or a work of applied art published before January 1, 1966. I'm looking forward to possibly uploading a quality portrait photograph of en:Edvard Kardelj and found this image on this Amazon listing. Through image source Googling I found the same item being listed on eBay, which has a date of creation of the photograph listed as 1950–1959. It's said to be a press photograph on the Amazon page. Was it published before 1966, I'm not certain. What is needed to have it pass? Evidence of being taken in Yugoslavia? Evidence of being published before 1966, for example in a newspaper? Or is the vague estimate of being taken in the 1950s listed on eBay enough? Thank you in advance! –Vipz (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The EBay listing, on the back, looks to have a stamp with a date of 1959 with it -- so that copy existed then, and pretty much shows copies were distributed to interested outlets. So I think that counts as published, then. It could be interesting to upload the image of the back from the Ebay listing first, then overwrite with the front, as part of that evidence. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I just realized I only needed to scroll down to see the archive of the listing, I was doing extra work (blocking Javascript) for no reason and wasn't able to access other photos from the listing as part of that. ^-^' Thank you very much for the suggestion and investigation! The stamp comes from a Belgrade-based information service (Yugoslav-based copyright holder) and was sent to a newspaper en:Svenska Dagbladet from what I can tell, so I agree with your assessment. –Vipz (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

COM:TOO UK

I nominated File:Logo Everton FC 1972.svg to be deleted since I thought it was above COM:TOO UK which is very low. It was however to my surprise kept since calligraphy can't be copyrighted, according to the closing admin. Is this true and where does the line go between calligraphy and normal text logos, which generally are deleted if British because of the very low TOO. For example w:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg is above TOO and I think the Everton logo is more complex. Jonteemil (talk) 09:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The each logo has two components: the letters "EFC"/ "Edge" and the fonts. The letters are not copyrightable; the font in the Everton logo is presumably OOC; the other presumably not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

OOC = out of copyright? Jonteemil (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Can we just presume it is OOC per COM:PCP? How can it be verified? Jonteemil (talk) 13:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Those letters in the Everton logo are standard English round hand. Even in the UK, that logo would not meet the threshold of originality, as there is nothing original in it. Nosferattus (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Photos of Costco food court menus with copyrighted images

Is File:Food Court Menu.png a case of de minimis copying of the photos on the menu (which I assume are nonfree)? The name of the file as well as the caption on wikipedia:en:Costco hot dog ("The Costco food court menu...") suggests that this photo is of the menu itself, which I think would go against a de minimis argument.

Same question applies to some other images in Category:Costco in the United States such as File:Costcohotdogstand.jpg and File:Costco-foodcourt.jpg. In my view these seem more likely to be considered de minimis. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 00:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Costcohotdogstand.jpg is almost certainly de minimis. File:Food Court Menu.png is a really well-composed photo, and probably if it weren't for our precautionary principle I'd say "keep it" because it's probably transformational enough in what it does with the copyrighted material, but given the precautionary principle we should probably delete it. And let en-wiki have a copy for non-free use. - Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a photo of the menu is going to even come close to meeting English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; so, uploading the file as such to English Wikipedia most likely will lead to it being deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I created a deletion request for this image. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 21:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I cropped out some of copyrighted content on File:Costcohotdogstand.jpg. Yann (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I also pixelated the problematic photos in the menu. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Excommunication of communists

There are a lot of flyers, printed by local dioceses of the Italian Catholic Church around 1948-1949, about the excommunication of communists:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

May they be uploaded on Commons? There is no clear author.-- Carnby (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless they were in the public domain in Italy on January 1, 1996 (which I doubt very much), they cannot be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons until 2045 or so. Lugamo94 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Any copyright here would have to be based on the text being copyrightable. Too simple graphically to be copyrighted on basis of graphics. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Can I upload the German version of a logo that’s already on Commons?

Hello, I’m new to Wikimedia Commons. Let’s get right to it:

The English and Spanish logos of The Super Mario Bros. Movie are already on Commons and considered to be “too simplistic for copyright”.

For me, this raises the question: Am I allowed to upload the German logo (which I sourced/downloaded from the Super Mario Wiki) to Commons – or will this clash with the more restrictive copyright law in Germany even though the movie originates from the U.S. and Japan?

Thanks in advance!

— Keepright! ler (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Origin of movie is USA, so you're good. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Upload complete: Keepright! ler (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

License history

When I look at a file, I can see what previous versions of that file looked like. But how can I tell what license these versions where published under? Concretely, I have a file that is available under CC-BY-SA, which I can't use, but if an earlier version was published under CC-BY, I would like to use that instead. Common zook (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: Specifically, this file File:DEU Kreis Lippe COA.svg is in the public domain and contains the penultimate version of File:Lippische Rose.svg. So that version must be in the public domain as well but the final version is CC-BY-SA?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Common zook (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Common zook: I'm not sure I follow that, but what information do you need that cannot be worked out from following up diffs based on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:DEU_Kreis_Lippe_COA.svg&action=history ? That should have the full history of all edits to the file page. I don't see anything suppressed from public view there. - Jmabel ! talk 14:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you! Just to make sure: I can see that page without being logged in, but I don't see a direct link to it unless I'm logged in, correct?

  Also, reading the full log seems a bit tedious. I was thinking, the license might be something end users (as opposed to active community members) might be interested in, so appropriate for the "file history" at the bottom of the main page. Is that table manually maintained, then?! Common zook (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  • @Common zook: yes, you have to be logged in to see the "History" link.
  • Not sure what you are asking about "manually maintained" but basically nothing is. The file history (I think that is what you are referring to) is strictly when the file itself is changed, not the wikitext or SDC.
  • It would be hard to mechanize something special for licensing changes, because it is just templates in the wikitext.
  • WikiBlame will work for Commons, and will determine which edit was responsible for a particular piece of wikitext. We don't have the nice interface to invoke it that Wikipedia has, but it still works the same way.
  • In this case, it looks like {{PD-Coa-Germany}} has been on that page throughout. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

    There is another actual copyright issue here though: All revisions of DEU Kreis Lippe COA.svg have been tagged as in the public domain, but the file Lippische Rose.svg, whose first revision was identical with the 2008 revision of the former file apart from a shield shape clearly below the threshold of originality was marked with the GFDL and ultimately CC-BY-SA 3.0. Both were drawn by the same author.

    It seems to me that the PD tag is factually incorrect, since the drawing has a copyright of its own. Felix QW (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks to both of you for the technical explanations!

    Now for the concrete case, @Felix QW, you say that the PD tag is factually incorrect?! But what about the explanation, that it is a coat of arms of a Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts? On a technical level, I assume it was not so much drawn as traced from the official pixel graphic [9] (it even says so though the link has changed). So are you suggesting that, to be on the safe side, I should retrace the picture myself rather than use the one on here? Honestly, if I not only have to verify the license of a document but also to double check it for legal legitimacy, it becomes easier to just contact every artist individually to ask for permission. I definitely see a clash between the two tags, but to me it's rather the CC-BY-SA that seems questionable. Common zook (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

    In general, SVG drawings (and even tracings) have independent copyright, in addition perhaps to being derivative works of the official graphic. So in order to be in the public domain, both the drawing and the source model have to be in the public domain. This is also exactly what the description at the official page of Lippe explains, when it says that

    Die Nutzung der reinen Lippischen Rose unterliegt nicht dem Urheberrecht - eine entsprechende Grafikdatei allerdings schon.

    If you are just looking for a vectorised heraldic rose, this file seems to be the closest we have that does not require freely licensing your derivative work. Felix QW (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

    Ok, but then it seems the files on commons don't respect the Urheberrecht of the file that they are clearly traces of (I doubt that file is under CC-BY-SA). I increasingly get the impression that using commons rather complicates than simplifies my work. Common zook (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

    I am not quite sure what you mean; this particular file seems to be based on this proposed flag of Lancashire, which was apparently placed in the public domain by its designers and proposers. Felix QW (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

    Sorry for the confusion. No, I'm still taking about the Lippe one. I was not looking just for any heraldic rose. But it seems like I could redo what the creators of the commons file did. Except that it all being based on a protected pixel graphic I don't why they were free to choose the CC-BY-SA license without consulting the creator of the pixel graphic. In other words: is redrawing a pixel graphic in SVG a creative act? I realize I'm ignorant, but it seems to me that either the CC-BY-SA license is incorrect (because it ignores the Urheberrecht of the pixel graphic creator) or otherwise I file redraw the pixel graphic myself and put it in the public domain. I just don't know which of the two. Common zook (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

    @Jmabel: This link for WikiBlame automates the settings "lang=commons" and "project=wikimedia" necessary for operation on this project. It turns out that the "user_lang=en" setting is not actually necessary for me browsing from the US, but it may be necessary for those in other countries who don't read the dominant languages of those countries. I called it "RevHistSearch" in my Top Links because "Blame" was too confrontational.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

What are some countries with a (very) high TOO?

Give some examples. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The United States? Nosferattus (talk) 02:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nosferattus high TOO for logos and other allied items in the U.S., but in terms of sculptures very low TOO. The w:en:Cloud Gate which may be ordinary for most passersby is protected, both by creation (post-1989 public art) and by registration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Brazil has a higher TOO than the US. Jonteemil (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

There's always the question of: for what subject and copyright protection status? You'll occasionally find documentation describing the US TOO as low, and that's not at all contradictory to the above. Compare the US and Spain. If you take a picture of 2D old art, it becomes public domain upon creation in the US but is considered a "mere photograph" in Spain and enjoys 25 years of protection (note that we choose to ignore this here per PD-Art). If you take a casual snapshot of some people, it is copyrighted for the full term in the US but is still considered a "mere photograph" in Spain with only 25 years of protection. Finally, if you take an amazing landscape photo worthy of an art gallery, it is copyrighted for the full term in both the US and Spain. So TOO in the US can be variously higher or lower than Spain. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Argentina and Building Interiors (covered under de facto FOP or not)

I am somewhat skeptical about Argentina's de facto FOP for architecture, but setting that aside, would interiors of buildings such as in File:Salon4.jpg be covered under the de facto FOP for architecture or would that only cover the exterior of buildings. No guidance on COM:Argentina if it covers indoors. @JWilz12345: @Cambalachero: @Asclepias: @Clindberg: Abzeronow (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

No comment on this for a while. For some recent discussion involving it, see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/12#Argentine_architecture_now_object_of_copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

If there is de facto FoP, there won't be anything written to say either way. It probably could only be proved/disproved via a court case. I think normally, we assume FoP applies to interiors unless the law explicitly says otherwise (a couple do). The interior is still part of the building and part of the same architectural copyright. If the FoP is architecture only, it would not apply to any other works of art which happen to be inside, I wouldn't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Questionable file licensing

File:Andy Warhol in 1950.jpg has been challenged at w:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campbell's Soup Cans/archive2 as lacking evidence of pre-1977 publication. Can someone address this?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Questionable_file_licensing sent me here.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • User:PascalHD found a Wayback Machine link https://web.archive.org/web/20160328113500/https://www.warhol.org/collection/aboutandy/biography/successisajob/1994-22-9-1/ that tells us this is from a 1950 silver gelatin print from photographer Leila Davies Singelis who was a childhood friend of Warhol (the photographer died in 2016). Abzeronow (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    • The best way to handle this is to just open a deletion discussion. Otherwise, you end up with discussions in 3 different places (like we have now). Here is the deletion discussion I created: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Andy Warhol in 1950.jpg. Nosferattus (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Funeral video copyright?

User:Nosebagbear's funeral was today, and was streamed on Youtube at [10]. Is that something that could be uploaded here? Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Surveillance_camera_footage isn't too clear. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

In UK specifically surveillance camera images may be in fact copyrighted. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

In the US, surveillance camera footage has been proposed to be uncopyrighted in court, but I think that case settled. It's not legally clear, and it's unlikely to generalize much. In this case, flipping through I saw the camera move, and even in the US, a person controlling the camera is likely to be an author generating a copyrightable work. (I'm not fluent in UK law, but Ruslik is right in pointing out that's the relevant jurisdiction.)

Why not ask them? It's likely to be sensitive, but they may be okay with a short piece going on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

:File:Valentino Biddle Keyes.jpg NOT ((PD-USGov))

File:Valentino Biddle Keyes.jpg NOT {{PD-USGov}}

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Might well be PD, but not on that basis. I'd make a pretty strong guess for {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Pinging @Racconish. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It's from 1921; it should be {{PD-US-expired}}. Keyes did not die until 1974, so it will be protected in some countries in Europe for some time yet. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please, rev del the original upload

Here: File:Foreign Secretary James Cleverly attends UNGA - 53197273892.jpg. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 06:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Next time, please mention the rationale. --Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan: I noted the rationale for the cropping in the description for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Túrelio & @Jeff G.- Thank you both for your prompt help here. I will mention the rationale in the future (which I have done previously). Best regards, --

Ooligan (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan: You're welcome. I indented your signature more.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Mario Kleff - Without Fear.png

I am the creator and sole copyright holder of an image that has been tagged for deletion. Can anyone provide guidance on the steps to resolve this licensing issue? I've already sent an email, but I received a response stating, 'If valid permission is not provided within 30 days from the initial VRT agent response, the file will be deleted.' How can I address this? Designer Mario Kleff (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Mario Kleff - Without Fear.png. - Jmabel ! talk 03:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Designer Mario Kleff: just to make sure I understand: (1) The book is by Robert Collins, and is about you, but you designed the book cover. (2) You are offering a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for it. (3) At some point, you wrote to VRT and got what appears to be a bot response indicating that there would be a window of 30 days to sort out whether there is valid permission. (4) At 03:00, 19 September 2023, Krdbot marked it as having permission received. (5) As of roughly 24 hours after that, when you posted this, there is some issue you still want addressed.

Can you indicate what issue you still want addressed? - Jmabel ! talk 03:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the book is by Robert Collins, and it's about me. I indeed designed the book cover and own the copyright to that specific design. 1. I am offering a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license for the book cover image. 2. I wrote to VRT and received a response indicating a 30-day window to validate permission. 3. I understand that as of 03:00, 19 September 2023, Krdbot has marked the file as having permission received. My main concern arises from the initial response I received, mentioning a 30-day window. Since I value this file's presence, I wanted to ensure that no miscommunication would result in its deletion. Given the recent update that Krdbot has marked the file's permission as received, do I need to take any additional steps, or is everything in order for the file to remain? Designer Mario Kleff (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Designer Mario Kleff: The ticket for your email message is in a queue, waiting for your permission to be approved. The backlog for that queue is currently 14 days. Thank you for your patience.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Designer Mario Kleff (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Designer Mario Kleff: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Open Scottish Parliament Licence

My reading of the Open Scottish Parliament Licence {{OSPL}}[11] is that it only applies when explicitly stated, and does not automatically apply to all works of the parliament. Is this accurate? I want to check this before diving in and nominating multiple files for deletion.

If so, we should only keep files where this license is specified in a file's source or in the metadata. There are several files where this license is unsupported, for example:

• File:Kate Forbes on the Backbenches 2023.jpg
• File:SPCB - Scottish Parliament at sunset.jpg

Several other files that claim this license do not give a full URL for the source, or give a URL which is now dead. For example:

• File:Nicola Sturgeon sits on the backbenches following her resignation.png
• File:Brian Adam MSP 2003.jpg
• File:Michael Matheson in 2018.jpg

Should I nominate these and numerous similar files for deletion? Verbcatcher (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Aimp_V4.51.png

The fact is that in the first version of the image, the views are a very small part that has no special relationship to the image. But the fact is that he has a VRT permit, probably that small part has nothing to do with what the permit was written for. I wrote through a translator, there may be inaccuracies Артём 13327 (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This is probably below the threshold of originality in any case. - Jmabel ! talk 17:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

First time creating a draft, I don't really understand copyright stuff

I'm currently working on this draft of an old movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Glass_Harmonica_(film) This is my first time writing a draft, and I uploaded a couple photos that are from the movie. I recently got messages saying "This media file is a derivative work incorporating another work or works. While the source of this file has been identified, essential source and copyright information for all work incorporated in this file is missing. The author and source of all incorporated works must be given so that the copyright status can be verified. Edit the file description page to add source information." What specific information do I need to include and where? Thanks! Welcome back bro (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This movie is still under copyright protection and screenshots taken from the film can therefore not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without permission from the creators or whoever currently holds the rights to the film. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Russia for further details on this topic. TommyG (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In general: if you "don't really understand copyright stuff," probably don't upload anything that isn't either a photo you took or something at least 120 years old. Even those can occasionally have issues, but it's rare. - Jmabel ! talk 17:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Create new custom template

Hello all! I was referred here by Jmabel following a discussion at the help desk. To summarize, Shuho Sato canceled his contract with the publisher for Say Hello to Black Jack (a manga series) and released the series into public domain. Jmabel felt I should come here and ask for instructions on how to make a copyright template to describe the situation so images can be uploaded to commons. He also suggested it should "wrap around" {{PD-author}}. Any help will be appreciated. Link20XX (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, it looks like he has gotten back possession of his copyrights, and the rights he's offered on Say Hello to Black Jack amount to placing it in the public domain. I think we probably should make a template that cites the relevant declarations and incorporates {{PD-author}}, rather than just use {{PD-author}} directly, but I have no experience doing this, and don't know whether there is precedent. - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Upon some reading into this, I found Category:Custom PD license tags, which has some useful examples. I guess I could try to create one based on one of them. Link20XX (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I created Template:PD-BlackJack and used it to upload File:Say Hello to Black Jack volume 1 cover.jpg. If someone more experienced could look it over to make sure I didn't make any mistakes that would be good. Link20XX (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I reworded slightly and made the talk page point to where we've discussed this. I think we're good. - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Mass.gov Law Library

The Massachusetts Courts website has some useful photos of the famous w:Sacco and Vanzetti trial from the 1920s - but are the images PD-US or not? Specifically the images of the judges and attorneys. Muzilon (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If they were published contemporaneously, then yes, since works first published in 1927 or earlier are in the public domain in the United States (the trial was in 1921). If they were photographs taken by the MA government, then it might be {{PD-MAGov}}, regardless of when it was published. The "Sacco and Vanzetti Defense Committee" letter was unquestionably first published in or before 1927, so that's fine. You'd have to look a bit more into the provenance of the other photographs; it's technically possible that they were not taken contemporaneously, were registered, and had their registrations renewed, but it's very unlikely to be the case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Allan C Green, photographer

A large collection (over 8700 images) of this prolific Australian ship photographer's work is held in the State of Victoria Library, gifted by Green, with a large proportion available on-line. They are properly tagged PD in Australia as he died in 1954, and the extension from 50 to 70 years introduced on 1/1/2005 was not retrospective. So far, so good. However it seems clear that none of these images are PD in the US - an example arose recently here.

My question is when they will be free to use under US rules. Does it depend on when they are considered published? They were taken over a period of some 50 years; and, as I understand it, Green provided copies (whether for payment or not) to collectors and for publication over a long period. It seems reasonable to assume publication at the date of the photo - but there would, I think have been no specidfic publication or registration in the US. The normal 70-year rule would release them on 1/1/2025. But do some of the more arcane US provisions extend that? Davidships (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Someone else may want to weigh in, but as far as I can tell, even with the URAA restoration, these are copyrighted in the U.S. only for 95 years from initial publication (regardless of where that publication took place). So anything published before 1928 is already free in the U.S., and that will move by one year every year. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This is certainly correct. Having been published abroad by 1954 and not having been PD in their source country at the restoration date, they will enter the public domain in the US 95 years from their first publication abroad. Felix QW (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Date of death is irrelevant for photos. Australian photos were protected for 50 years from creation (since extended to a term based on lifetime, but not retroactively). So, any of his photos before 1946 should be OK, unless there is a question they were never published at all before 1989. It sounds like most were a gift to the library in 1956; that or actions after that could well have constituted U.S. publication. I don't think I would delete anything on those grounds. Photos from 1946 and later, and any paintings (which had a 50pma term on the URAA date), could be U.S. problems though due to the URAA. If the government owned any copyright (i.e. it was transferred with the gift), and they declare them public domain, there is a chance that is good enough for the U.S. as well -- if they consider that declaration to apply internationally, the way the one in {{PD-AustraliaGov}} does. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I rarely question your judgements on copyright, but if the U.S. rights were restored by URAA, isn't the copyright then valid until it would have expired in the U.S. if U.S. formalities had been complied with, rather than when it happens to expire in its home country? - Jmabel ! talk 02:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If formalities were followed, then yes. That was extremely rare for items outside of movies and books, so we often assumed publication happened without notice for non-U.S. works. For any publication before 1964, there has to be a renewal on file in the U.S. Copyright Office, so if you find one of those that would change things of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg: You're not following my question. Didn't URAA constitute a restoration to what the rights would have been if formalities had been followed? Or am I wrong about that? If I'm wrong, what exactly is the chronological term of the "restored" rights that were granted? - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

That is correct, the URAA would restore to what the rights would have been had all formalities been followed, including the formality of renewal. Some of those photographs (i.e. those from before 1928) will be PD in the US (the restored rights would have expired), while those published in 1928 and thereafter are probably copyrighted in the United States. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

What Carl Lindberg meant was that in 1996, Australian copyright actually ran from creation rather than lifetime, and that hence URAA restoration did not happen for those photos that were taken before 1946, since they were PD in Australia in 1996 already. We had all been operating under the (incorrect) assumption that Australian copyright used to be pma+50, but apparently it was creation+50 for photographs. Felix QW (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Right. If you followed formalities, the URAA doesn't matter -- anything 1928+ is still under copyright. If you didn't, for Australian photos taken before 1946 (regardless of when the author died) were PD in Australia on the URAA date ({{PD-Australia}}) and were thus ineligible for the URAA and remain PD in both countries. Australian photos 1946 and later got restored to the full 95 year U.S. term. The deletion rationale on the mentioned work is completely wrong, but as a 1953 photo the end result would be the same. Well except for that if the copyright itself is now government owned, I think it gets the PD-AustraliaGov terms, and normally the URAA is ignorable for those. I just don't know if the author donated the copyright as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Android update.jpg

Is the license for this file correct? This file was transferred from Flickr and Anroid license was not indicated there Артём 13327 (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems as if the little green robot image is already contained in the file tree given as the source, so I am not sure what the original contribution of mtan14 is. The Apache license is certainly fine. Felix QW (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Look, that green robot was once part of the Android source code.

And the original source of the photo did not have an Apache 2.0 license indicated, and it was added after copying the file here Артём 13327 (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a good argument to be made that this file doesn't have a lot of potential to ever be used, as it is a partial slanted photo of a screen. (Can be replaced with a screenshot or a png file) Bremps... 15:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Is this photo PD?

This file was posted by the US Embassy in Rangoon, so I assumed it it was PD because it was made by the Federal Government (the Embassy). Metadata, however, says it is made by "Aung Win Htut". Is it safe to assume Aung Win Htut is an employee of the Embassy? Bremps... 15:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Hard to say. They posted it without attribution, but that could be someone being very sloppy at the embassy.

It's right there on Facebook, so it would be pretty easy to ask. - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Good idea; I hadn't thought of that. Bremps... 16:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I got permission from trusted user via forum - do I need to do anything more?

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_walking_route_sign_in_Britain.jpeg

Is it kosher and OK or should I do anything more here? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I just license reviewed it, the Twitter user is the same as the OpenStreetMap poster. Abzeronow (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I've added two categories: Category:Charlbury and Category:Fingerposts in Oxfordshire. I suspect more are in order. Please, when uploading photos, add relevant categories. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

New user uploading various images probably violating copyright

I've noticed new User:BowlingBaddy has uploaded various professional-looking photos (uploads), either claiming they were his "own work" (though photos must have been taken over decades), or leaving no evidence of permission. I left a message on his Talk Page at en.WP, but I'm not sure how admins would proceed from this point. RCraig09 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done There are all already tagged with "no permission". I added a warning to the talk page. Yann (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Personality rights of US citizen artistic performers in the UK

There's been a question raised about possible issues of personality rights for a photograph in the following DYK nomination: [12]

Thanks, --3family6 (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Clapham Junction Station circa 1875

The first picture on this web page was published at least once in 1994 (Change at Clapham Junction, by Tim Sherwood, pub. Wandsworth Borough Council), where the credit was 'Wandsworth Libraries'. All photographs in the book are credited, many to individuals. Given its age, and lack of attribution by an apparently careful publisher, may I assume it is PD? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 20:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that will be fine to upload with {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-1996}}. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

How short is short enough?

Hello!

Under American copyright law, can a 6 word short story be under copyright?

{{PD-text}} says that to be in the public domain, it only needs to not be classified as a "literary work," but it could very well be argued this short story is a literally work.

Cheers, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 22:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Six words seems unlikely, but not obviously impossible. Some of Ashleigh Brilliant's epigrams that are not much longer than that (well under 20 words) have been deemed copyrightable. - Jmabel ! talk 01:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Create new Open license tag

Not sure how I should go about it, but I would like to upload photos from the Yukon Government website which have been released under a "Open Government License - Yukon", however there is no tag for that yet. There are tags for British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta (COM:TAG Canada) but not Yukon. How does one create a new license template? Ex. {{OGL-YT}}, Thanks. PascalHD (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@PascalHD: Those existing license tags use the {{Autotranslate}} system, which allows for multilingual messages that automatically select the right language based on what language a user is using to browse Commons. Full details are at the link, but you can use {{OGL-C}} as a reference. The overall process is:

1. Create a layout page, which contains the layout without any language-specific elements. This would be at Template:OGL-YT/layout (reference: Template:OGL-C/layout).
2. Create the language link page, which provides a list of links to all available languages at the bottom. This would be at Template:OGL-YT/lang (reference: Template:OGL-C/lang).
3. Create the translation pages, which will include language-specific text, for example Template:OGL-YT/en and Template:OGL-YT/fr.
4. Finally, create the main tag page at Template:OGL-YT.

Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 00:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the helpful information! PascalHD (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:PD-Liechtenstein-old-unknown

I want to remove the wording: "Note that this applies only if a reliable source is cited to indicate that the author is not publicly known; just not knowing who the author is is not enough to qualify the image as public domain." The statement does not appear in Liechtenstein law and the burden of proof is beyond what we require in any other country template. We expect due diligence to be performed to determine that no author has been attributed. RAN (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Short of an expert on Liechtenstein law popping up (unlikely to happen given the small size of the country) do you have any sources that support your interpretation? I expect any advice you get here will be around whether other editors agree with your interpretation of the sources. From Hill To Shore (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The wording in the second half of the sentence is generally what we use for laws which specify "anonymous", as a work had to be published anonymously in the first place to qualify for that. The Google translate on Liechtenstein's law does say "unknown" and not "anonymous", though it also says if the author becomes generally known in the 70-year period, the term changes to 70pma, which I guess implies the work's author has to be generally unknown, not simply unknown to the uploader. Not sure the second half is all that wrong. The part which requires a reliable source on the "unknown" status is indeed not common; not sure I've seen that anywhere. It is on the uploader to support the unknown claim, but don't think it has to be in the form of a reliable source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• @Clindberg: I think you are the best person to reword the template. My main concern is "Note that this applies only if a reliable source is cited to indicate that the author is not publicly known". It is beyond the standard burden of proof we require, and it is now being used to nominate a tranche of images originating in Liechtenstein. In most cases at archives/newspapers/magazines you will find author attribution is left empty when the creator is not known, "author=", rather than "author=unknown". Generally when an image is nominated for deletion, demanding that an author be found, for due diligence we run a Tineye search to see if the image has been attributed to any creator, or if it is in the possession of an commercial archive like Getty Images. --RAN (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  • "due diligence" seems like the operative term here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The standard I have seen is that if it has been published anonymously with the author's consent, for instance in a contemporaneous newspaper, magazine etc. or if an archive designates the author as unknown, then that is a strong (but not irrefutable) indication that the work is actually anonymous. On the other hand, a website displaying the image and not crediting the author is insufficient, since it is unclear whether the website authors merely didn't copy the author information from their ultimate source. I am not sure how that sentiment would be expressed in a template though. Felix QW (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    • It can be tricky to determine whether an unknown individual gave consent. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

    That is true. I think we usually assume that contemporary sources are published with that consent unless there is a reason to believe otherwise, which is why we also almost never question them when we try to figure out dates of first publication. I am not saying that that is what we necessarily should put on the templates, of course. Felix QW (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Plutowiki: You wrote it, where did you get that verbiage?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• We probably should develop a standard boilerplate sentence about due diligence regarding attribution and dating, that appears in every country specific template. Another issue to tackle with consistent wording would be URAA compliance. Some country templates already have wording saying the image is in compliance with the URAA agreement with regard to USA copyrights, and others demand you add a separate PD-1996 template. Having the wording for PD-1996 included in each template would give us consistency. --RAN (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• I agree about the first part, but for the second part, the US template could be PD-1996 or PD-US-expired, depending on the date of publication. Yann (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)