Commons talk:Licensing

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Licensing.

For discussions of specific copyright questions, please go to Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Discussions that do not relate to changes to the page Commons:Licensing may be moved, with participants notified with the template {{subst:moved to VPC|Commons talk:Licensing}}.

For old discussions, see the Archives. Recent sections with no replies for 60 days may be archived.

Other archives

Seven 2006/2007 discussions organized as subpages, ignoringincl. comments added in 2014:



"You want a picture of Mickey Mouse, but of course you can't just scan it in. [...] The reason why you can't upload photographs of such figures is that they are considered as derivative works." I think we can understand why this is now slightly out-of-date. I don't know how to rephrase it to clarify that post-1928 versions of Mickey are unallowed, though, without sounding too technical. ObserveOwl (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Bart Simpson? - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel@ObserveOwl how about Bugs Bunny or Tom and Jerry? For sure these famous characters are still under deceased cartoonists' copyrights, even their original appearances. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was changed about a month ago to "Bart Simpson", which I think is well enough known, though I'd have no problem with Bugs Bunny. I'm not sure Tom and Jerry are as widely known. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry have only about a decade to go in the US; Bart Simpson has a lot more life. Also Tom and Jerry (Van Beuren) is in the public domain, and even if only animation geeks who know the cat and mouse duo have heard of them, it's a little bit ambiguous anyway.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sort-of late reply, but I think the current example is future-proof enough to be listed (Bart was created in 1987, was given his modern appearance by 1990, and his original creator is still alive), and therefore won't be public domain until likely the 22nd century. Xeroctic (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Assume “really old, scratchy black and white photos” are public domain


Newspaper cover from few decades ago


Can add magazine cover to article? In the jungle of regulations and discussions, cannot find how to classify (or find) status of rights to old cover of newspaper presented by editorial office in the archive. It's even hard to find precedent – there is no example on newspaper's wiki page, which is sure indication that can't... (What if I take photo of cover myself?) plz hlp

(> The Sun, 1980) Konky7777 (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Konky7777: Multiple newspapers are called "Sun". Copyrights on newspaper covers as part of the newspapers generally ran more than a couple of decades, but may not have been renewed. That is less common now in countries that are members of the Berne Convention. You can ask on the particular newspaper's Wikipedia article's talk page, and you can see the default copyright status for the country where the newspaper is published under COM:CRT; for example, Poland has standard copyright 70pma and joined 28 January 1920 per COM:Poland.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely unlikely that any 1980 newspaper is out of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence saved all my volumes :-) Konky7777 (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, one illustration will last lifetime! I will never try to add photo again even though I am photographer.
(I'm not surprised that billions of people steal trillions of photos – the law is horror and tragedy that serves to make money for crooks, but it is impossible to understand because it requires comments and precedents, etc... and geo... .
— One dreams of machine with an exist engine for searching for similar photos with add, by the way, specific ©, and database in which publishers should apply to participate.
A model for imitation and legal sharing for scientific and adv purposes. Konky7777 (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, an Italian Wikipedian asked me about this U.S. Coast Guard's document: does PD-USGov-whatever apply to this? -- Blackcat 14:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coast guard is a Federal Agency so yes it'd be PD-USGov, but with the caviet that I couldnt load the pdf to read it as there may be text/images/diagrams within that are copyright of a third party. Same issue we have slides from Wikimedia events when the author uses a copyright image. Gnangarra 14:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sir,
How I can be sure about it? I mean, the USGC's report is 42 years old. It's possible that the images mentioned in the report are no longer protected by copyrights.
Thank you Moloch1982 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that was more-or-less current and copyrighted in the U.S. 42 years ago (1982) would still be copyrighted now. The only way something would have gone out of copyright in the U.S. that was under copyright in 1982 is if (1) it was first published before 1929 or (2) it was published 1954-1963 and its copyright was not renewed. So unless they were using old copyrighted material, the intervening 42 years are not relevant. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I got it, by the way from the USGC's report I'd want to extract some conceptual scheme of the mobile offshore drilling unit. Those scheme are usefull to catch better the descriction of the events. The platform's desing is obsolete and from the scheme it's not possible to infer anything about the builiding process. Moloch1982 (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or it's {{PD-US-1978-89}}, since there is no copyright notice. I would just use {{PD-USGov}} (or both licenses). There is one photo, which is not credited, which may or may not come from the Coast Guard but it's probably no-notice anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these questions are better asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. This is no longer a general question forum but just a talk page for Commons:Licensing. There are still some who watch this page but you'll get more eyes at the village pump. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo file


Is this logo Public Domain or vice versa? The file looks somewhat abstract, but I'm confused. --린눈라단 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@린눈라단: Please discuss this in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rishiri.jpg, not here. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my mistake. Thank you for your response. --린눈라단 (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Double-Check


Hello, I have very recently uploaded a file that is public domain in its source country due to expired copyright, as it's older than the renewal year (1943+) for pre-1993 copyright law. However, I'm unclear if this would still be considered public domain in the United States in spite of its expired copyright, and I'd like someone to double-check me as I don't want to get a copyright strike.

Addendum: The metadata of the image also reads as photography of an existing 2D work of art, implying this is a direct photograph of the image, presumably framed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madamepestilence (talk • contribs) 00:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Madamepestilence (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Madamepestilence: I don't think it is PD in Russia. According to, Ganf lived until 1973. I'll be nominating it for deletion on that basis (presumably to be restored in a couple of decades).
Also: discussions like this really belong at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, not here. No outcome of this discussion is going to change Commons:Licensing. - Jmabel ! talk 05:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]