Commons talk:Copyright tags/Archive 2

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

{{}} seems to NOT allow Commons hosting

This licence was created in December, having when I review the page the conditions of their {{CC-by-3.0}} would seem to prohibit us hosting these works. It is not a clear unported licence but a variation that excludes us from hosting the works.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an old version. They are not renew English version of the site. Look and translate Russian version: . I have wrote them, I hope they will renew English version too.--Ctac (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What license/wikitext/copyright tag shall I use?

This overview is totally incomprehensible!! I am going to upload a picture of a public person, but not sure what license/wikitext/copyright tag I shall use. I have got a permission from the person to upload the picture. --Oddeivind (talk) 06:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, persons depicted in a photo are normally not in a position to issue permissions to use a photo. Instead, that has to be done by the copyright holder, which is usually the photographer.
Secondly, for Commons to accept the photo, the permission must name a specific license that allows anyone to use the photo with or without modifications for any purpose, including commercial purposes (such as the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 license). Only the copyright holder can choose such a license. A permission statement that only gives permission to upload the photo to Commons without mentioning a specific license is not sufficient.
All such permissions received should be sent in using this format to our permissions archive. LX (talk, contribs) 09:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright license help

I uploaded an image of a poster for a concert tour this one Pink Friday Reloaded Tour <--- , and I keep trying to put in the Non-free poster thing but these annoying copyright violation things keep popping up. An I get it off a website and I provided the source and how would I be able to find the owner of a picture on a website that doest show things like that. This all to complicated , I just want to put a picture on Wikipedia, its just that simple.

This is Wikimedia Commons. Non-free images aren't permitted here. You should probably upload it on the English Wikipedia, assuming the image and its intended use meet their criteria for non-free content. --Carnildo (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Mozilla Public License 2.0: template changes needed

Please see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Mozilla_Public_License_2.0_and_templates. --AVRS (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

PD signatures

Should we mention {{PD-signature}} somewhere on this page? Andy Mabbett (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes why not?--Sanandros (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

New Korean tag

Can somone provide some information about that new Korean copyright tag? Thx--Sanandros (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Open Database License tag

I could use a tag for the Open Database License. This is the license used by OpenStreetMaps since 12 Sept 2012. For works derived from OSM, could a second tag specifically for OSM-derived maps be created stating something along the lines that "This work is based on map data from OpenStreetMap, which is licensed under the Open Database License." The purpose of this second request is so that a map derived from OSM data can be licensed CC-by-SA, while the underlying data can be licensed with the ODbL. According to the OSM Legal FAQ, only the database is subject to the ODbL, not other elements of a derivative work. AHeneen (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What you're describing sounds an awful lot like {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}}, which is also used in {{OpenStreetMap}}. LX (talk, contribs) 17:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you. I didn't see those templates on this page. I've gone ahead and added the {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}} template under "various free licenses". AHeneen (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

PD-120 tag for U.S. works

There are a wide range of anonymous, unpublished works coming out of U.S. archives which appear to be public domain because they are more than 120 years old. Items as recent as 1892 and which remain unpublished seem to be eligible for inclusion on Commons. Yet, the only tag I see available for such works is {{PD-US-unpublished}}. But that tag only covers works unpublished up to 2003. An anonymous, unpublished 1890 work, for example, is as of 2010 past the 120 year mark, and so the {{PD-US-unpublished}} is not useful. 1) Is there a more appropriate tag (if so, I'm not seeing it)? 2) Shouldn't there be a {{PD-US-120}} tag, or would something preclude this? - Tim1965 (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Photos from state agencies and quasi state agencies (United States)

Can one, and how would one tag photos taken by state governments and their respective agencies? Are they public domain, or copyrighted? --Bubblecuffer (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no common license for state governments. Every state has a different policy. Not only that, but even within a given state, different agencies may license content differently. You should also note that a state agency may release photos with an open license (or into the public domain), but the policy only applies to works generated by the agency but not contractors...for example, a state's Department of Transportation may release photos taken by their employees as public domain, but copyright to an image/drawing of a bridge under construction (or proposals for a new project) may still belong with the contractor even if it is hosted on a state D.o.T.'s website. Based on the list of copyright tags, it appears works by public employees of the following states made during their official duties are in the public domain: California, Florida (unless permitted by the legislature), & New Jersey (executive branch only). Elsewhere, look for a "terms of use" or "legal info" section on the agency's website where you are obtaining an image or contact the agency. AHeneen (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

New Hampshire government documents.

I would like to upload an image of a 2008 New Hampshire Democratic Primary absentee ballot. The website of the New Hampshire State Digital Publications Library states:

A digital library service of the New Hampshire State Library, the state authority responsible for the preservation, distribution and exchange of state publications, that provides easy and permanent access to born-digital publications created by agencies of the State of New Hampshire. All publications are in the public domain unless otherwise noted.

However, there is no tag for public documents of the State of New Hampshire, and I am therefore unable to upload this document. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've created some such tags. However creating a usable PD-NHGov will require a bunch of legal info and far more detail. What's your precise source of the above quote? According to , "New Hampshire… law is absolutely silent on both the copyrightability of state works and any limits on the use of public records." What other info supports the idea that such a tag? It seems that 44 agencies are on board! I would guess that the law isn't clear enough to support a broadly applicable PD-NHGov tag. The PD-NJGov tag was deleted, even though, IMO, there's plenty of justification for it. However, you are more than welcome to use PD-because, and reference,, and if convinced it's appropriate, create a PD-NHGov tag. --Elvey (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Table of Contents

It's not detailed enough. I think we should raise the toclimit (currently toclimit-3), or have a second, normally collapsed ToC with a higher toclimit. Thoughts? --Elvey (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


I'm going through the process of creating a map based on Natural Resources Canada licensed under the Open Government Licence - Canada. I believe it's pretty similar to the original OGL, but {{OGL}} is UK-specific. Should I go ahead, modify it and add the new temeplate to this list? Or should I let someone who knows what they're doing do that? Samuell (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Version 2.0 of the Canadian OGL license (OGL-C) appears to meet all of the Commons requirements for a free license. Creative Commons appears to agree that it is a free license, although they do have a few suggestions on how it can be modified for improved compatibility with CC licenses (see [1] and [2]). I think it would be fine to create a {{OGL-C}} license tag. —RP88 07:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. Samuell (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

United States Army and Air Force heraldic items

Most images of US Army and Air Force heraldic items (insignia, emblems, shoulder sleeve insignia, distinctive unit insignia and the like) are currently marked with various tags, indicating they are simply PD US Government, Air Force, or Army. Eash of these tags indicates that the tagged item is in the public domain. However, although usage in Wikis is allowed, these items are not entirely in the public domain. Heraldic items for the armed services are created by The Institute of Heraldry. The tag for TIOH:

Public domain This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia produced by the United States Army Institute of Heraldry. It is in the public domain but its use is restricted by Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 and the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507). Permission to use these images in the USA for most commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use.

Deutsch | English | русский | +/−


includes the limitations on commercial use and links to the statute and regulation that govern their use. Although TIOH also designs items for the US Navy, for some reason the Navy is not expressly mentioned in the Code of Federal Regulations.

The bottom line is that there are probably tens of thousands of Wikimedia images that have tags indicating they are public domain, when US law only permits non-commercial use of the images. --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is an example of a non-copyright restriction. It's Commons policy to accept such images. In addition to the very specific tag you mention (i.e. {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH}}), Commons has some generic tags intending to warn re-users of this restriction (i.e. {{Insignia}}) as well as other non-copyright restrictions (e.g. {{Trademarked}}, {{Personality rights}}, etc.). I'd encourage you to add {{Insignia}} (or similar) to images of U.S. heraldic items, if you're certain it's use would be restricted in the U.S. With regards to the omission of the Navy, I think I recall that they specially objected to a mandated use of TIOH due to interservice rivalry (TIOH is officially part of the US Army). —RP88 15:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, the cited code does NOT only permit non-commercial use of the images. It's less broad than that. Licensed use in commercial manufacturing is permitted, and commercial use that does note involve manufacturing and does not involve commerce in Military medals or decorations is NOT prohibited. So the template's assertion, "Permission to use these images for commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use." is false (i.e. not always true); it should be qualified so that it is (actually) true. --Elvey (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
{{edit request}}
As noted, the assertion is false. I request the language be changed to "Permission is required before use these images for most commercial purposes. It may be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry." On the talk page, we can note that licensed use in commercial manufacturing is permitted (even if not from TIOH), and commercial use that does note involve manufacturing and does not involve commerce in Military medals or decorations is NOT prohibited, and that, for example, use on an ad-supported fork of wikipedia is NOT prohibited. --Elvey (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello? Awfully quiet!--Elvey (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:UN map-2

Some time ago, I made a new template to replace Template:UN map.
Feel free to discuss on the Talk page. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently related to the next section, I added a header level below to get a subsection. Jeremyb-phone suggested OCHA map to discuss the issue. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
No, two different matters. I refered to Template talk:UN map-2. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:OCHA map

Template:OCHA map reads: “We are keen to receive your feedback and hear how you used OCHA's maps. We would be grateful if you would notify us by e-mail and share your work with us”.
Appropriate in the original document, but reads quite odd here. It also says: “... ensure that the sources and the disclaimer are below the map ... keep the data sources as mentioned below the map”. Yet the attribution is not below the map, but in the attached description page.

Unlike the ReliefWeb site, Commons does not show the disclaimer in the map, but on the description page. I think the disclaimer should be on the map itself, as logo and OCHA name are also on the map. The Commons file can be used without the attached description page. Thus the images should actually be adapted. The ReliefWeb permission page only requires a link to the source (as well as the credit “Based on OCHA/ReliefWeb”, or “Source: OCHA/ReliefWeb” for unmodified maps), but this does not apply to the disclaimer. Either remove the ReliefWeb logo, or add the disclaimer. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you've raised this on multiple discussion pages. I replied first on the first one I saw. Can we decide on a place discuss and keep it in one place? --Jeremyb-phone (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Discuss on the template's talkpage. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

OTRS pending

Can anyone add this template to the list. {{OTRS pending}}. Is very useful when you wait the email to OTRS. Xaris333 (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a copyright tag. --Denniss (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe to have the option? How can upload many pic with {{OTRS pending}}? Upload wizard is useless in that case. Xaris333 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International is used by Flikr. It is described as an newer version of Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).

I was trying to add a photo searched using the "Creative Commons only" criteria. Neither licence option is listed on Wikipedia, but why not? Surely if copying and use is allowed, this option could be included here too, so the file can be easily copied across using the wizard and used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 11:50, 18 October 2014‎ (UTC)

John, please read Commons:Flickr files (at least the box at the top). You may also wish to read about what this project is all about to understand what you can and cannot upload to Commons. LX (talk, contribs) 11:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
OK Thanks LX. Well I don't understand why a Commons licence allowing fair use with accreditation etc cant be used here, but it looks like the file I've just uploaded (Phaner pallescens 1.jpg) needs to be deleted. Please can you do this. (After I uploaded the file in the wizard and couldn't find the license, I didn't see an option to back out, so was stuck!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 12:51, 18 October 2014‎ (UTC)
As it says right at the top of the second page I linked to: this is a repository of free, educational media files. The free part is very important – it's a founding principle of Commons that we should only host content that can be used by anyone for any purpose. With that in mind, I don't see why it's so hard to understand that a photo that you can't edit to suit your purposes and that you can't use for anything but non-commercial purposes doesn't meet that principle. As for fair use, that's a concept that depends entirely on context, and since Commons is a general media repository, there is no context, so fair use simply does not apply here. I added {{cc-by-nc-nd-2.0}}, which is a speedy deletion tag, to the file description, and it's ben deleted. LX (talk, contribs) 13:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"For Hire"

lots of refs here to "life plus 70yrs" but which tag should be used when the artists work was for a company more than 70 years ago? My example is Betty Swanwick for London Transport in 1936 Victuallers (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)