Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Community portal
Help desk
Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Shortcut: COM:VP/C · COM:VPC
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Commons discussion pages (index)

Please note
  1. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  4. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
  5. Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

File:Europarl logo.svg[edit]

Is the licensing of this file correct? If it is, then I think there's probably no need for en:File:European Parliament logo.svg to be treated as non-free since the only reall difference between the two files seems to be the language used for the organization's name. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: The EU actually claims (see here) that is is a protected original design, and that all rights are reserved (i.e., they claim copyright). While there's not much originality here, it would be hard to justify it as free against the laws of every single EU member state, which I think would be needed. It's likely this is above the TOO 'somewhere' in the EU, and the EU parliament would (as a lawmaking body) itself have the power to claim rights in this 'by fiat' anyhow. It's probably not ok here, IMO. Reventtalk 00:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the information Revent. What should be done, in your opinion, about the Commons' file? Tag it with {{logo}} or nominate it for deletion via COM:DR? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info: The file is already tagged with {{PD-textlogo}} (several users, incluing Me, agree that the last version of the logo is bellow the TOO) and survived 2 DRs; open a thrid one only with stronger reasons (in doubt, just don't touch the file) --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


Hey, I wonder if I can upload this handwriting to the commons. The one who wrote this died almost 23 years ago. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

What does it mean? Ruslik (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Strangely, the appearance of a person's handwriting can be copyrightable, as a form of 'artistic work', even if the actual written text isn't (not that I can read this, lol) Reventtalk 00:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify... I'm not saying that a person's 'style of handwriting' is itself copyrightable (it's essentially a typeface, in a way), but a specific instance of handwritten text can be... it's the 'appearance' of how the person wrote the specific text that, especially if it was not in some kind of 'standard' handwriting style, that can have the needed originality. Reventtalk 00:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ruslik0, Revent: It's in Persian language and reads: "We hold the illusion that we've stayed but the martyrs have passed. But the truth is that time has taken us away with itself, but the martyrs have stayed." This is the actual handwriting style of Morteza Avini ([1]) and is not any specific style of writing and I don't think can be counted as an artistic work. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It is a long text. It is likely to be copyrighted. Ruslik (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Handwriting is not copyrightable in the U.S., unless there are pictorial aspects of it. Some UK scholars think it may be copyrightable there, but that will be rare I'm guessing (very few countries use their definition of "original"). Stuff like calligraphy can be copyrightable in some countries. Obviously, if the written text qualifies for a literary copyright, then that counts. That could be enough text to create a copyright -- certainly some short poems are. In the U.S., "short phrases" are not copyrightable, so things like slogans are not, but once you get to a couple sentences, it's at least possible. If the text is repeating a known saying, that is different of course. I have little idea what Iranian copyright law would consider copyrightable though, and that is the real question here. The English translation of their law lists "decorative writings" as copyrightable -- I don't know if that sample would qualify, or if that would mean something more like Persian calligraphy. And like other copyright laws, they list all "literary, scientific and artistic writings" as copyrightable. So the question is if Iranian law considers that amount of text a literary or artistic writing, and I just don't know. If it is, then Iranian law protects it for 50 years after the author dies (it used to be 30, but was non-retroactively extended to 50 in 2010, so authors who have died since August 1980 get the longer protection). If not, then it's OK to upload. But I'm not sure that many here have much idea about how much text is needed to qualify as "original" under Iranian law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Clindberg for your comprehensive explanation. I don't think that our case can be counted as "literary, scientific or artistic writing." Should it be proved? How? --Mhhossein (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I uploaded the image. --Mhhossein (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yep. It's anyone's guess what the Iranian threshold is -- and since they are not a member of the Berne Convention (it is supposedly under discussion but it has not happened), then they are not even bound by the Berne Convention norms anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Stamps from Argentina[edit]

Asking just to be on the safe side: I have read this about copyright for stamps from Argentina. Am I right in thinking then that [2] and [3] are in the public domain? Blue Elf (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

That depends on who the designer of the stamps are when they died. Normally it is 70 years after their death per Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Argentina. According to this stamp listing they are from 1961 and 1971 but they don't provide designer details. However, for a truly anonymous work the copyright period is 50 years. So first you need more information. Ww2censor (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! :-) Blue Elf (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Photograph from National Portrait Gallery[edit]

I'm considering uploading a photograph of a person, Arthur Benison Hubback, from the National Portrait Gallery here for use in the article about him. However I'm not quite sure of the copyright status, is it permissible? The photograph is dated 1919, and I have seen other photographs by the same photographer later than this date, but I want to be certain before I upload the image. Hzh (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

To be accepted on Commons the photograph must be out of copyright both in the US and also the country of origin - in this case the UK. In the UK, for a known photographer the copyright expires 70 years after the photographer's death. According to the NPG the photographer Walter Stoneman died in 1958. Thus the image cannot be uploaded to Commons as the copyright in the UK will not expire until the end of 2028. If the photograph was published before 1923 it will be in the public domain in the US and acceptable on English Wikipedia. Aa77zz (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It should also be mentioned that the National Portrait Gallery has been known to go after individual Wikimedia uploaders for distributing content from their site. LX (talk, contribs) 10:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
So what is the official position of Wikimedia exactly? Upload and accept the risk of prosecution? I see quite a few photographs by Walter Stoneman from NPG here in Wikimedia - for example pictures from 1919, 1921, and 1922 and others. They seem to be in violation of copyright if they must satisfy the +70 years after death rule. Hzh (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
There are other Stoneman photos under Category:Walter Stoneman. Aa77zz (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If they are a UK work, and UK copyright still exists, they should be deleted. If any of those photos were made under the direction of the UK government, they would likely qualify as PD-UKGov and be OK. Under the older UK law, anything made under the direction or control (or even first published by) a UK government department was considered Crown Copyright -- even if the author was not a government employee. That changed in 1988, but Stoneman's photographs would have been under the old rules, if they apply. I think it was possible for copyright to remain private if there was an agreement to such effect, but those are impossible to verify. Any other photos Stoneman did though should be deleted, as long as they were first published in the UK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Many of Stoneman's works held by the NPG were taken as part of the National Photographic Record. This was a project instigated by Stoneman in collaboration with the NPG where he invited selected people (including prominent politicians and military officers) to sit for photographs, so these photos were not taken at the direction of the UK government. January (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Small edits to existing images on Commons[edit]

I've recently uploaded a few images that were variations of images already uploaded on commons: cropping and color tweaks. Unfortunately for me, these were mostly connected with the recent attack in Nice, and it seems I have been templated on the French Wikipedia, which I've never edited, for missing information. As it's difficult to engage in a discussion in a language you don't speak, I'm dropping this here. The originals are all too easy to find, and I believe the originals are all in the same categories as the tweaked images. So...yeah...I just need to know what to fix.

I'm best reached on the English Wikipedia under the same name, but I will try to check back here in short order for any response. Timothyjosephwood (talk)

Despite how easy the uploader claims it is to find the images, the onus is on the uploader to provide all the necessary details but I have searched for these images and cannot find them, so have left a post on his enwiki page. I found a source for File:Hüseyin Avni Mutlu (cropped2).png but this File:A Husband Beating his Wife with a Stick - Google Art Project.png has no source and neither have the others on his talk page. Ww2censor (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I assume the source for that one is File:A Husband Beating his Wife with a Stick - Google Art Project.jpg. The name is identical, only the extension is changed. --ghouston (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
As Ww2censor said above, you need to actually name (and preferably link) the source files -- that is the required source info. (If it turns out the source file is a copyvio, it helps finding all the copies, etc., and we can verify the license.) I did fix one of your files, but finding the source images is not easy, while it is for you (or should be) ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that "No Photo" is not a reason to remove from Wikimedia Commons?[edit]

"No Photo" means "don't take pictures". I think in this case it should be uploaded with OTRS permission from Taipower Company (Eric850130 say "烏山頭水力發電廠" and "烏山嶺引水隧道" both belong to 嘉南農田水利會).

Now, you can see that there is a problem with Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eric850130. Can someone explain why these image can be reserved but is not to gain OTRS permission?--Liji (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Permissions like that are non-copyright restrictions. It is up to the uploader if they want to take any legal risks involved. The Taipower Company does not own any copyright interest, so there is no need for OTRS, as we only delete for copyright problems. The uploader runs any risks if there are other legal issues, but that is up to them to judge. If the uploader wants them deleted in light of that restriction, we would delete, but only in that case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Municipio Quito: missing permission, copyvio or everything is alright?[edit]


Doesn't File:Municipio Quito 2014.svg need an OTRS or else? I only see "Copyright © 2016, Municipio del Distrito Metropolitano de Quito. Todos los derechos reservados" on but as the file is here since 2014, I may have missed something.

Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If it is above the threshold of originality, it definitely needs an OTRS confirmation. Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it passes TOO. This is just two different typefaces and a coloured line. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi @De728631:
It means just changing permission to |Permission={{PD-textlogo}}{{Trademarked}} and removing the CC BY-SA 4.0, that's it?
Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I have imitate the File:Boeing wordmark.svg case like this. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 10:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that should be ok. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


I've spent the last hour searching the site for where to respond to a notice from Admin Eugene Zelaskey that three of my uploaded images, vintage photos, need verification that they are mine to post. There was also a fourth notice concerning metadata on a photo apparently disproving my ownership of copyright; however this fourth image is not anywhere among my uploads, nor has it been deleted. i must assume this fourth citation is incorrect.

Regarding the three photos in question: I responded to all the requests for information in the quick upload function when I uploaded them. All three photos are in my possession, were photographed by my late father, and any identifiable people in one photo are: my late grandfather, my late grandmother, my mother, my two brothers, my two sisters, and myself; or in the photo of me as an infant and my late father, taken with a timer beside the family garage. The photos may be "vintage", but that is a description which makes me "vintage" as well - a characterization I find uncomfortable. Any living person among the subjects has requested to have access to the photos available for internet sharing. All are aware of and approved in advance the public availability of those images.

The photo at my grandfather's pond was taken - by my father, who is not in the photo - in March of 1953, in Columbia County, Georgia. The photo of the hay wagon was taken in 1976 from the front porch of the family homestead in Barnwell County, South Carolina, by my father. The photo of my father and me as an infant was taken with a remote timer by my father on the Clemson University Extension Experiment Station in Pontiac, South Carolina, in May, 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandlapper1709 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Sandlapper1709:
You have to edit the file pages themselve to correct them. For example, to update |date=2016-01-26 with the true dates you just give, to replace in |author=[[User:Sandlapper1709|Sandlapper1709]] your name by real authors, etc.
Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sandlapper1709: And note also, that any image that is not your own work (eg. a photo not taken by you) and not in public domain yet (eg. not published before 1952 or published and copyright renewed) require a written permission from the photo copyright owner (the photographer or their heirs). Follow COM:OTRS in such case. Ankry (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Besides sending the email as described at COM:OTRS, if your father is no longer alive and you are the heir to his intellectual property, the correct license tag would be {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}, not {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. I hope that helps. - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:National Football League uniforms[edit]

Just wondering if the files in this category are OK to be licensed as free work. Some of the helmet logos such are freely licensed as {{PD-textlogo}}, but others appear to be too complex to be eligible for copyright protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Likely de minimis. Many of the US sports logos were PD-US-no_notice to begin with, and only more modern variations (often more subtle) would be copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Clindberg. I agree that some NFL teams like the Bears, Packers, 49ers, Cowboys, Browns, etc. have fairly simple helmet logos (or in the case of the Browns no logo at all) and, therefore are some type of PD. There are, however, many teams which don't. For example, File:Redskins uniforms12.png, File:Ariz Cardinals uniforms.png, File:Patriots 12uniforms.png, File:Jaguars13 uniforms.png and File:Miamidolphins uniforms13.png from that category all seem to use logos that are above the TOO. Many of these such as en:File:Miami Dolphins 2013 Logo.svg, en:File:Jacksonville Jaguars 2013 logo.png and en:File:New England Patriots logo.svg appear to have been created after 1977 so not sure if {{PD-US-no notice}} applies to them. It's also unclear how many of these are "own work"; for example, File:Tampa Bay Buccaneers uniforms 2014.png looks like it might possibly comes from a website like this. Can de minimis be simply claimed to justify uploading these kinds of files as own work, or do they at least need a proper source? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
March 1989 is the PD-US-no_notice line. Most of the current NFL logos are small variations (at best) over virtually-certain-PD versions, and it's only those differences which would be copyrighted. At the scale that they exist on these... de minimis I think. Now if the uniform outlines came from somewhere on the net, that could be different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Understand. I wasn't aware that {{PD-US-no-notice}} and {{PD-US-1978-89}} were both applicable. I believe that only the Jaguars, Panthers and Ravens have been newly created teams since 1989. Other teams have re-branded which might make their newer logos eligible for copyright protection. I can understand the de minimis argument based upon the size of the logos, but the files themselves still do not seem to be the own work of these respective uploaders, but rather look like they come from some website. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Gippsland motor garage[edit]

Good Morning,

We have modified the image for a new campaign and We need to know the conditions to post the image on a trademark of fuel in the spanish media as newspapers and magazines.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. File:Gippsland Motor Garage, Old Gippstown.JPG has been published under a Creative-Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Creative Commons licences in general require that you attribute the original author on every copy that is distributed. In this case it would be "Gippslander2012". You also need to provide a url to the license text on every copy: And what is probably more important, you would have to release your campaign image under the same or a similar free license, so anyone else could potentially make money off your artwork. For more details, please read the full licence at said link, but for the given reasons, Creative Commons images are probably not optimal for proprietary advertising. De728631 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

PD painting requiring permission[edit]

The painting of Drying Fish at [4] was painted in the 1840s and is therefore clearly PD. However Alexander Turnbull Library has added the note Permission of the Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand, Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa, must be obtained before any re-use of this image. As the painting is PD do they have the right to withhold permission, or can I upload it regardless? Optimist on the run (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Optimist on the run: Make your own decision. The precedent has been that the Commons community does not criticize contributors who choose either way.
In en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute a Commons contributor took all the pictures from a museum website against the museum's protest. Those pictures remain in Commons. With the en:Reiss Engelhorn Museum other users took those pictures, and the Wikimedia Foundation lost a lawsuit in Germany about keeping the pictures. Despite losing the lawsuit the images remain in Commons. I am not aware of what consequences come to contributors who upload such content, but so far as I know, there is no community lore about bad outcomes coming to users who upload such content. Follow the rules as you understand them but I think there is no clarity available beyond a few stories like these. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, it's probably the usual story of an institution claiming that its digitizations of public domain works are entitled to a new copyright. I have no idea if that has ever been tested under New Zealand law. Commons accepts it regardless as {{Pd-Art}}. See also [5], points 174 and 175. --ghouston (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
As noted above, it's complicated, and really comes down to a personal decision about what level of 'risk' you are willing to accept. People discussing this issue (at least in reference to the US) commonly refer to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. as if it's authoritative, however that case is only 'binding' on courts in the Southern District of New York. We can't give you legal advice, and it's not uncommon for Commons to be able to 'keep' a work that was probably illegal for the specific person to upload. Reventtalk 01:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry:, @Ghouston:,@Revent:, thanks for the advice. I'll go ahead and upload it in due course (when I've written the appropriate article), and if the library kicks up a fuss I'll suggest they can nominate it for deletion. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:WIIS logo.jpg[edit]

Moved from Commons:Help desk#Copyright help regarding File:WIIS logo.jpg
To whom it may concern,

I recently read about an organization from the CSIS news feed called "Women In International Security", which is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in D.C., and want to create a wikipedia page for it so that more people can learn about this organization and their work and great causes. I uploaded their logo on wiki commons today in hope to use it on the wikipedia page that I am working on simultaneously. I notice that the picture is not showing up on Wikipedia and realize that the copyright permission of the picture is not cleared. My problem is that I do not know how to verify the copyright status of the picture as I found the image on Google Image search. Can any experienced editor kindly point me to the right direction please?

Thank you in advance for your help.

--Lawjul (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm honestly not sure whether that logo would be copyrightable in the U.S. or not. If it's copyrightable, then it is certainly copyrighted, and you'd need to go through the process at COM:OTRS to get appropriate permission to use it. However, the only part of it that is not simple graphical shapes or text is a very standard equal-area Mollweide projection of the globe, on which they can't really claim any copyright (compare File:Mollweide projection SW.jpg. I've move this to the Village pump/Copyright page, where someone is more likely to be around who would know. - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that is copyrightable. The only plausible grounds would be a 'compilation copyright' for the arrangement of otherwise uncopyrightable elements, and I don't think that's even close to being sufficiently original. Reventtalk 04:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Visual artists and licences[edit]


I see a lot of artists or artist representatives uploading pictures on Commons. Some doesn't seem to understand licences. They want at the same time to keep their rights on their works and to be featured on Commons or some Wikipedias. Some will understand why their files are deleted as a protection of their rights, some will just give up with frustration, and some will send an OTRS. Among those last ones, some just follow the procedure to finally having the right to expose their work on a well known wiki, but without knowing what they exactly do with their own rights.

Personally, I do not fully grasp the implication of putting own art under a free licence. But I feel CC BY-SA 4.0 as potentially dangerous. What are the risks? Do I have to scare those artist? (With a hollow voice) "If you want to live by your art, don't put it on Commons." Is there genuine examples of profit lost because of a badly chosen licence? As an invented example: If someone prints your art on T-shirt (with the right credits and licence) and meets financial success before being widely imitated, what the artist can do?

Is there s recommendable pages or templates for user talk pages to explain incidence of the licences I could start with before using concrete examples?

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • If someone prints it on a T-shirt, it's going to be rather difficult for them to conform to the terms of (for example) CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or GFDL, all of which require that the license be reproduced. (I guess they could print the license on packaging.) But, yes, probably if we can do something to have artists better understand that it would be good. - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    • CC-BY and CC-BY-SA do not require that the license be reproduced -- just the URL. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @Clindberg: Are you saying that even when not online, so the URL is not an active link, it would be OK to just provide the URL? - Jmabel ! talk 05:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
        • That is what the license says. There is one CC examples PDF which even shows just giving the full name of the license. The license does say the requirements can be satisfied in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means and context in which the Licensed Material is used. So there is probably some flexibility. They do seem to really prefer a URI to the license, or at least URI to a page where the license details can be found. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Thanks, Carl. - Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Michigan-related photos with dubious CC BY-SA 4.0 license[edit]

The following photos have a specified license of {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} but the photos appear to be quite old and the applicability of the CC license seems questionable. For at least some of the photos, it would appear that {{PD-US-1923}} could apply.

It is likely that at least some of the photos (particularly those concerning specific events) would have been published at some point before 1923, but finding indication of pre-1923 publication might not be easy. --Gazebo (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Secretary Geithner Visits UPS.jpg[edit]

Is it PD or not? The photo has been published on Flickr by the U.S. Department of the Treasury but the description on the source page says "Photo courtesy of UPS". --jdx Re: 10:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If it is "courtesy of UPS", it is not in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Well... it is not PD-USGov. Presumably UPS knowingly allowed the photo to be posted in a stream marked "public domain", so it could still be PD-author. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The photo is unused and its copyright status is unclear so I nominated it for deletion. --jdx Re: 14:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

De minimis[edit]

Hi. Are these:

cases of de minimis similar to the Louvre Pyramid at Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines or am I missing something? --Sporti (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Seems de minimis to me. At worst, we could put a Gaussian blur over the sculpture. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It's the "incidental" part of our de minimis policy, but I think those are all fine. Photos of a wider scene should be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Klassisk förpackning av Marabou Mjölkchokladkaka från 1956.jpg[edit]

Is it obvious copyvio? --jdx Re: 16:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Marked BMacZero (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Change to UK copyright law regarding furniture and interiors in effect tomorrow[edit]

I happened to be reading the latest issue of the British magazine Digital Camera when I came across a brief in the front of the book about a change to UK copyright law I was unaware of, but that may require some mass deletions here. I could not find any evidence of previous discussion of this anywhere on Commons, either.

Apparently an amendment to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in the last few years repealed Article 52, which governed the copyright status of mass-produced artistic works. The new law is scheduled to take effect, the magazine said, July 28 ... a few hours from when I am posting this, UK time.

It basically retroactively extends the copyright period for such works, primarily furniture, from 25 years after the creator's death to 70. This puts things like the Barcelona chair back into copyright. Apparently this was heavily sought by the international furniture industry to bring Britain's replica furniture industry to heel. basically by putting UK copyright law in this area in line with the rest of Europe <super>Now I understand Brexit a little bit better</super>.

The aspect of the change that should most concern us, however, is twofold:

  • It exempts the furniture from freedom of panorama, making any photographs of copyrighted furniture derivative works and thus incapable of being licensed as a free image when photographed in the UK.
  • It apparently applies to copyright-eligible interior design as well, even if the individual items of furniture are not themselves copyrighted.

Here's an Ars Technica article discussing this. Here's another article discussing the new law's possibly dire impact on British design publishing.

My question, are there any photos in this category (and elsewhere; that's just where we would have to start) we would have to delete? Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


All maps from are now licenced under a non-free licence, but they used to be under CC-BY-SA-2.5 as the Internet Archive says. IMO an admin should confirm that this file actually is under BY-SA just like it is done eg. in case of Flickr photos. Unfortunately, it seems that on Commons there are over 40 maps from this source. --jdx Re: 12:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

CC-BY licenses cannot be revoked retroactively. It seems like the copyright license for that site has changed quite a few times in the past.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I know that these licences cannot be revoked but the situation is confusing. I was going to fill {{copyvio}} but something told me to check how it was in the past. --jdx Re: 13:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jdx: Created, and populated, images needing license review. The files need a {{license review}} template added after the license on the date they were uploaded to commons has been checked by someone with the userright. Reventtalk 22:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Ronnie Lagnada.jpg[edit]

File is licensed as CC 3.0, but its is given as "Own work by the author, Originally uploaded in the English Wikipedia" with the author being given as en:User:Ronald Galope Barniso. A source link is provided, but that leads to File:Canat Boac Marinduque.jpeg, which is a different image with a different author, so it unclear how this can be used to verify the CC 3.0 license. Isn't OTRS permission or some other kind of proof needed that the author of this photo has agreed to freely license it? There is also File:Ronnie Lagnada (crop).jpg which is a crop of the same image and is also licensed as CC 3.0. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The source link is erroneous. The correct link is en:File:Mayor_Ronnie_Lagnada.jpg, which is a duplicate uploaded to enwiki. Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Ecce Mono - restoration of Ecce Homo by Elias Garcia Martinez.jpg[edit]

I don't think File:Ecce Mono - restoration of Ecce Homo by Elias Garcia Martinez.jpg can be considered public domain, it is a recent work by a living artist. What am I missing there? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 05:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@JohnnyMrNinja: There was a claim by the person who restored it that their work was a faithful restoration of the original. There is an idea that non-creative exact duplication of a public domain work produces a public domain output. Probably the situation could be better documented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A "slavish" reproduction, where you are trying to replicate exactly existing expression, is not copyrightable in the U.S. You *might* argue that if that was the artist's intent, that they did not add anything creative themselves. But, even something like the Statue of Liberty replica in Las Vegas has a separate copyright, as the sculptor there did claim they were trying to alter it a (very) little bit, and that's enough. You could also easily argue that even though it's a "restoration" the new work is obviously different and that the artist created a new copyrightable work in spite of themselves. At the very least, the Flickr author looks like they just combined existing photos of the works -- and so the Flickr license there is probably completely bogus. And I do see other versions on the net from August 2012 such as here, which predated the September 2012 upload to Flickr (and look to be the same source photos, even if one is cropped differently). Using in a comparison context like that would likely be fair use in a great many situations, but the CC license is false, and I am more than a little dubious on a PD claim of at least the third photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[edit]


Can someone take a look at Special:Contributions/Mr.dogra.007, please? His images can be found on (like on and sometimes other websites. show his intention to promote Some could be ancient pictures now in the public domain but I found nothing about that. I have tried to treat them but I have the sensation of not knowing what I'm doing on those ones.

Best regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Ellin Beltz: --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Logo Profialis francais - lisse(Converted).pdf and the Threshold of originality in France[edit]

This file was nominated for deletion for nearly valid reasons (but it is in use, therefore in scope). So, seeing the discussion I have some questions concerning Copyright, just to get opinions abou the TOO in France:

  • Is the logo bellow or above the TOO in France? (it seems too simple for me)
  • Since the file seems to meet the TOO and is not SVG (eligible to have a different license than {{PD-textlogo}}), Is this edition valid?

Can someone take a look? --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, @Amitie 10g:
I feel that the French TOO threshold is lower. (For French speaking contributor, I could recommend this comparison between England's and France's conception of "originality" in copyright laws.)
I would say that this P/leaf/construction-lines logo can be copyrighted in France.
Regards, --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)