Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/09

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.

Own work flag question

File:Flag of the race.svg is listed, correctly, as "own work" in the sense that I fully believe the editor User:Banderas made the .svg from scratch. However, the w:Flag of the Hispanic People was created in a 1932 contest. I looked a bit for copyright - Google returned [1] which seemed like a copyright notice, but it is a very progressive search engine that usually doesn't have your search terms in the results, and this is no exception. Unless it's hidden in there somewhere and I just missed it. There is a bit of detail in the sun thing, otherwise I'd say PD-ineligible, I dunno. In particular I don't know if the sun thing is accurate to the original anyway! Can anyone riddle out if the thing is free or not? Wnt (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

For many flags, the general design is an idea, and not copyrightable itself. It's possible that there could be a selection and arrangement copyright for some flags, especially private ones, but most of the time we treat it like Commons:Coats of arms -- it's each specific drawing which has its own independent copyright. The sun part would absolutely be copyrightable, but only that specific rendition -- it would be irrelevant that an older drawing used a different sun depiction as part of a drawing of the same flag. In this case, I would guess the sun is patterned after the one in the flag of Uruguay -- possibly copied from elsewhere, or a new original take on it. Unless we find some evidence of that exact sun depiction being copied from elsewhere (meaning the same lines) -- not sure I'd worry about it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

File:TOR.wav

Could someone properly tag (or nominate for deletion) this file? Almost for sure it isn't own work of the uploader, but IMO it may be PD. Pinging the uploader: @EmorhC elgooG. --jdx ^Re: 01:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} so I've tagged it accordingly. Guanaco (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Licensing question about Xanadu House images uploaded by Dgtldesigner

In July of this year, Dgtldesigner uploaded a number of photos that were taken at one or more of the three experimental Xanadu Houses.

I tagged File:Xanadu - caves of ice.jpg with {{subst:npd}} because a "search by image" Google Images search indicated that a version of the image had appeared in this blog entry (with a date of September 4, 2014) prior to the image being uploaded to Commons. (In addition, in the lower-right corner of the image, it is possible to see what looks like part of a letter, raising the question as to whether the image was scanned from an existing work.)

The search results for the other images listed indicated that the images appear on Commons, in this "Xanadu Houses" HowlingPixel article, and (for some of the images) in the English Wikipedia Xanadu Houses article. The About page for HowlingPixel describes it as an "online reader" that has certain advantages. It appears that the text and images in the HowlingPixel "Xanadu Houses" article were copied or derived from a version of the English Wikipedia article. (As mentioned by Yann in a previous discussion, the HowlingPixel article appears to be violating Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Though the article says "Content from Wikipedia" at the end, it does not say anything about the GFDL or CC BY-SA 3.0 licenses, and there does not appear to be any link or URL for the Wikipedia "Xanadu Houses" article. In addition, the HowlingPixel article does not include any information or links regarding licensing details for any of the images that are included in the article.)

For File:Xanadu - lily pads.jpg, the Google Images "search by image" results included these two. Wikiwand pages. It appears that Wikiwand is a reader that copies text and images from Wikipedia articles and so the content of pages on Wikiwand may change over time.

The question is, for the images listed above (other than File:Xanadu - caves of ice.jpg) that were uploaded by Dgtldesigner, would it be all right to treat the images as being the uploader's own work, or would it be better to tag the images with {{subst:npd}} on the basis that their licensing may be suspect? --Gazebo (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Tough case. The images definitely look scanned, of course. But they have the feel of more personal photos, and scans made of the prints. If I'm seeing the right image in Google Cache, the deleted one may have just had a curved corner in the bottom right -- there are bits in the top left which also indicate the edge or corner of a print. The "futuristic architecture" one you have above also has what may be a corner in the bottom left. On the other hand, the "caves of ice" upload is the same photo in that blog article -- but a wider crop, so the blog article is not the source for the upload. Either the uploader is someone with access to images used in the blog article, in which case they are likely licensed legitimately, or there is a common source from which both copied. But one that is not findable online. It looks like the scans were made in 2010, so they are not recent, nor originally made in order to upload them. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feeback. In December 2015 and January 2016, I uploaded three photos of the Xanadu House that was located in Kissimmee, Florida (File:Xanadu-House-entrance-in-Kissimmee-FL-1985.jpg and File:Xanadu-House-in-Kissimmee-Florida-1985.jpg, along with a cropped version of the second photo) that were from the Florida Memory Project. The photos that Dgtldesigner uploaded would be a useful addition to the topic (right now, the photos are not even categorized), assuming that they actually are freely licensed. --Gazebo (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Are there templates for indicating that an image was republished w/o attribution (analogous to en:Template:Backwardscopyvio) by an external source?

Two images that I uploaded to Commons – File:TAAR1 Dopamine.svg and File:Annotated ΔFosB.svg screenshot.png – were republished in this source without attribution to the Commons file pages, as required by the {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} license that I published them under. Are there templates for indicating that these images were plagiarized (i.e., republished without attribution per CC-BY-SA-3.0) by an external source so as to avoid issues/confusion that might arise in the future (i.e., someone marking these images as a copyvio of that source)?

For further context, see en:WT:MED#Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything specific for this situation, but a short explanation at the file talk page should work. The "Nominate for deletion" tool advises the user to check the talk page if it exists. Guanaco (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it would be a variation of {{published}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Very nice. The "legal" field can be used to show whether the license requirements were met. Guanaco (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

That was very helpful, thanks! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

How do you get an image that violates copyright deleted?

(Sorry if I'm on the wrong page - if I am, please redirect me to the right page.)
I've been trying to get a "stolen" image deleted by using {{tlp|speedy|This is a copyright file that the uploader claims (falsely) to be their own}}. Nothing has happened (i.e. the image is still on commons.) What am I doing wrong? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thats because you used {{tlp|speedy|... instead of {{speedy|.... That is not using the speedy template, but is just linking to it. So, the file never appeared in Category:Other speedy deletions, until I, some days later, picked it up and converted it into a regular deletion request. regards --Ju Ta 13:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You need to nominate it for deletion (there is a tool for that in the sidebar). User:JuTa fixed that for you; comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:John_B_Prescott,_Australian_business_leader.jpg to justify why it should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd also add that if you're going to tag something for speedy deletion on copyright grounds, you need to show that it's an obvious copyright violation, for example by providing a link to a previous publication. Just saying that it is a copyright violation without backing it up isn't enough. If you can't conclusively show that it's an obvious copyright violation, but you can point to factors that cast reasonable doubt on the source, authorship and/or licensing information, you can nominate the file for deletion discussion, which is what's happening now. And of course, blanking out all or parts of the file description in question obviously isn't the proper way to deletion of any sort. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Such blanking could lead to sanctions. — Jeff G. ツ 18:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tülin Şahin.jpg

Anyone with expertise on copyright can comment on this complicated DR--in the DR itself--if they wish. Its really difficult. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Attribution when the creator and the copyright holder are not the same person

Who should be attributed in a work made for hire? The actual creator (usually an individual) or the copyright holder (usually a company)? I have the same question for works whose rights have been transferred. For example, if I want to use File:Jing Ulrich by Chai Lizeng 02.jpg, to whom should I attribute the work? Photographer, Chai Lizeng? or the subject and the current copyright holder, Jing Ulrich? 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Both are important. The copyright holder generally decides what the attribution should be, and a copyright notice, if you have one, would name the copyright holder. In many countries moral rights means that the creator should be identified as well, if they want to be, so I would include that somehow. It appears that the attribution text has not been specified there. I suppose something like "© 2017 Jing Ulrich, CC-BY-SA-3.0, photo by Chai Lizeng" would work, or anything along those lines. The publication year is less important these days, but could be helpful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Carl, thank you for your response. I have another question: When a legal person, say a college, releases a photo of a professor under the CC BY-SA license, and explicitly states that it has purchased the copyright from the photographer, should I ask for the photographer's name as an OTRS agent? I am asking this because the license requires attribution. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The license requires attribution of whoever the copyright owner wants. If the copyright owner wants no attribution, that's fine too, I guess. The license is based on the copyright owners' rights alone, so no, the creator is not necessary to be named, especially in the U.S. If a country has moral rights, the creator can force his name to be attached, but that is not an explicit right in the U.S., and even then it is just the economic right which is being licensed. It's no problem asking them about the creator though, and asking if they should be credited -- that may actually help both parties, by extending the copyright term outside the U.S. since it would no longer be anonymous, and help to conform to moral rights in other countries. But I don't think it should be a requirement. A creator also has the moral right to *not* be named, and that wish should also be respected -- it can be hard to tell from the outside which is which. But if there is an author named, and there is no explicit attribution string stated, I would keep their name somehow in the attribution going forward. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Unclear: Are the photos simple enough?

I'm not sure if these pictures: TVR3 and TVR Timişoara are simple enough to match the {PD-textlogo} and {trademarked} licenses in Wikimedia Commons. That 'R' in the text is a pseudo-3D symbol with shadows and after some people it may be more complex than the Wikimedia Commons requires. I ask for some opinions if these logos are simple enough to be transferred.--Arpad Andris (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, here are a few TVR logos that have already been uploaded to Commons. I'm unsure whether these (or the ones linked above) fall below the threshold of originality:

— Andreyyshore (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Um, we'd like a few opinions over here, please. — Andreyyshore (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Andreyyshore: COM:TOO has nothing to say about Romania. Given the fair use claims on rowiki and the dubious own work claims here, I would guess these logos are not simple enough to be here. Do you have any laws or cases from Romania to add to COM:TOO? — Jeff G. ツ 22:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find any cases, but what I know for sure is that Romanian law doesn't define a threshold of originality — Law no. 8/1996 (revised multiple times up to Jul 2015) just mentions that the work must be original, but doesn't really dwell on it or explain what "original" means.

It also states that copyright protection does not apply to official symbols of the state, public authorities and organizations (ohhhh!), such as coats of arms, seals, the flag, emblems, shields, badges, name tags and medals.

That ohhhh! above is due to the fact that I realized that it mentions public organizations as I was typing. Also, the fact that the law mentions official symbols, while introducing a list of possibilities with "such as", could mean that logos of state institutions may be exempt from copyright protection too, right? TVR is Romania's public broadcaster, controlled by the Parliament and financed from the state budget, so, basically, its logo is... uncopyrightable? Wow. That would make it eligible for {{PD-RO-exempt}}, I guess, and since the "base" TVR logo is included in every one of its channels' logos (beside some undeniably simple text), that would make those uncopyrightable as well, or, at most, {{PD-textlogo}}-worthy.

Am I making sense? — Andreyyshore (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Andreyyshore: That works for me. — Jeff G. ツ 23:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Then I guess we can migrate them. I'll also make sure those dubious license tags get fixed while we're at it. Thanks for giving me a push toward re-reading the law; the situation was actually a lot simpler than I thought. — Andreyyshore (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

File:TetUA 11logo.jpg

Can someone who reads Russian please check this website for any mentions of a Creative Commons licence? I can't find any apparent link, but the logo is too simple for copyright anyway. If there is no CC licence at the source, we should change the file's licence to PD-textlogo. De728631 (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The disclaimer at the bottom says that "Copyright to logos ... belongs to their rightful owners and they are shown on the site for information purposes only". Ruslik (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I think then it's a question of TOO. Do you happen to know whether the threshold of originality for logos in Ukraine in general is rather high or low? De728631 (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not know but the logo is simple - just a text with some background. Ruslik (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrospectively claiming copyright on a file name

Here is an interesting example Commons:Deletion requests/File talk:Monta Beach 5008RC.JPG. This photo was taken six years ago- today it was tagged in French with some interesting legalese suggesting that the rights to part of the name had been registered in 2016, to a PR company and they had sole rights to the use of the file name that had already in existence for 5 years. Further they then went on to demand deletion of the image, I commented but bring the issue here for wider attention. Further, the images (they have only found one as yet) are of the shore line between high and low water mark, which I believe that in French law is property of the state, so they are attempting to copyright a natural phenonoma that they don't own. Do we have a friendly notaire who would like to claim their registration of the two words was done without full diligence and is thus void? --ClemRutter (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The DR has been closed as IP trolling. — Jeff G. ツ 22:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

For all intrested parties, and for future precedens; it wasn't closed due to IP trolling, but because we do not delete images on the grounds of trademark violations. The fact that the trademark may be additionally protected by trademark laws in some countries is no bar to Commons hosting the image. The closing did not add any judgement to the validity of the trademark, or not. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, however the term was correctly used per Patent troll. Whenever we see over reaching of this type, we should call it out. The closure was a good example of referring the claimant to take down procedures, however if we see more, we should avoid spending too much time on them. A stock response may be useful. --Fæ (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I used a stock example from OTRS, but added some (and removed some) to make it fit this DR. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Poverty-1274179 960 720.jpg

Copies of this can be found all over, but I think that the original is from here. I'm guessing this new user assumed he could copy it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: What makes you doubt it comes from Pixabay originally as sourced? Got any evience of earlier publication than March 25, 2016 to Pixabay? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Josve05a has updated the page in the way that I was just about to suggest. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment I reviewed the license. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment I changed te review template Yann used, as to retain the category Category:Images from Pixabay, as well as info about Pixabay. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking at amazing-stories.net, I'm skeptical of any claims that it's the original source. Maybe someone posts their own photos with their own stories, but they sure aren't paying good money for good photography, nor are they a host for people to post their own photos with credit, like Flikr or Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I am also sceptical of amazing-stories.net as the original source, not least because the image there is slightly cropped. It would be good to know where the picture was taken. It looks like the old area of Palma de Mallorca, which is implied by amazing-stories.net. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I guess I'm not surprised about amazing-stories.net. I wasn't able to find the date it was added to Pixabay. Doug Weller (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Photo of US plaque from 1950s

I am uncertain about the copyright status of this plaque. It is a direct copy of text from the 1950s. I read archived discussions, but I'm still uncertain. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, The plaque is not facts, so {{PD-ineligible}}, and would be {{PD-US no notice}} anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

1885 photograph

This photo [2] was shot in 1885 by an unknown photographer. The depicted object has been destroyed during WW II, so that image is of high importance for art historians. Upload allowed using PD-old or something else? --Achim (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It is likely pd-old but the year of the first publication would help. Ruslik (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Linaresdj Uploads

Hi, just noticed this users uploads (Special:ListFiles/Linaresdj) appear to all be based on organisations logos - is this a copyright issue (apart from some that may not pass the threshold of originality)? If so hows the best way to flag all these in one go? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If they are really based on logos, you can nominate for deletion those that are not {{Pd-textlogo}} or {{Pd-shape}}. Ruslik (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

An old photo

This old photo probably suffers the same problem as those I discussed here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Frank Edward Clarke images

Images of art by Frank Edward Clarke have been made available through the National Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa website as "No known copyright". See here for all the art by Frank Edward Clarke made available by Te Papa. These images have subsequently been unloaded into Wikicommons. Given that all the images made available by Te Papa are in the public domain this is of course permitted. However the company that has done the majority of the uploading into Wikicommons, Rawpixel.com, has done so using a more restrictive CC BY 4.0 license rather than a Public Domain license. See all the images named as "Southern Pacific fishes illustrations by F.E. Clarke” here. The company is also claiming the work of Frank Edward Clarke as their own by listing themselves as the author. See this example. I have emailed of Te Papa to make them aware of this situation but thought I should also raise the issue here at the Copyright Village pump.--Ambrosia10 (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ambrosia10: Rawpixel is committing copyfraud. — Jeff G. ツ 03:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

They may be unaware that uploading carries no authorship, and does not create a copyright. At any rate, the images could be marked as {{PD-old-100}} and {{PD-New Zealand}}. And the author field should be Creator:Frank Edward Clarke. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Much of the metadata information too makes false claims. I've retagged the images as {{PD-old-100}} and {{PD-New Zealand}}, and also replaced the {{Own}} template with the creator's template Creator:Frank Edward Clarke. If I've missed any in doing two batch tasks on the category or made any errors please let me know. Ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's help. Very much appreciated. --Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

i want use some picture but i worried about copyright

as a title i want to use a picture page in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agnus_Dei_01.jpg can i use this picture for our catholic assoiciation in college( we will retouch like fix some word and delete flag ,addit our college logo) i worried about copyright law in republic of korea(south korea) so u guy give meinformation for how can i use this picture plz~thank u

This is File:Agnus Dei 01.jpg. It is in the public domain so you can use it for any purpose. It is not copyrighted and there are no conditions for the use of this file, but please be aware that anybody else may also use this original version. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

0 A.D. license violations

The files in these categories need mass-deletions requests, missing permission:

Many of them also lack one or the other license tags (GPLv2+, CC BY-SA 3.0). Nearly all of them lack conveying or offering the GPL'd source code. Some are from official sources, some are not; at least the unofficial ones I checked fail compliance spectacularly.

I can't nominate for mass-deletion easily. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The above comment was made at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard (Special:Diff/258233911) and has been copied to this page by 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC).

Moved discussion. I don't mean an immediate mass-deletion to be necessary, but {{Wrong license}} or {{Disputed}} for the files at least. I find it troubling to redistribute these files. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 22:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Photograph published in 1909 in France

Hi, concerning en:File:Flusin and Bernard 1909 ice drilling plate 24 M. Hess, devant l'appareil au repos.jpg which is a photograph from a French book, published in 1909. I think this is {{PD-1923}} but not sure since apparently the photographer Georges Flusin died in the 1950s and the 70-year rule (if it applies) would be in effect. Bri (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

For works first published France, Commons requires them to be PD under French law. So the 70-year rule would apply here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bri and Prosfilaes: The first three hits on Google all say he died in 1954, so his copyrights in France will lapse on 1 January 2025. — Jeff G. ツ 11:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

File talk:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg

Input from super experienced folks would be appreciated here on an issue that has... a lot of history. TJW ^talk 19:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

A coin

Good day everyone. I was wondering whether someone could help me determine which tag I should use for uploading this coin (dating to the early modern era). Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The above comment was made at COM:AN (diff) and has been copied to this page by seb26 (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC).

The coin itself is obviously out of copyright, but the photograph itself has a copyright. So, either take a new photograph of the coin yourself, and upload that with a free license, or convince whoever took the photograph at your link to license their photograph with a similar license such as Creative Commons-ShareAlike-Attribution (see Commons:Licensing); the latter would entail going through the COM:OTRS process where the photographer sends the permission to the OTRS email address mentioned there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Clindberg: Got you. I wonder; does the same rule apply to this image? [3] I'm really looking for a Safavid-era coin that was minted in Tbilisi/Tiflis. Would be a prime addition to this article I'm trying to bring to GA. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

US-NK join agreement in IAEA

Hi, Here is a tricky case:

Can a join agreement between the US and North Korea be in the public domain as {{PD-USGov}}, as considered a work by the US government? Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, or {{PD-EdictGov}} as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The document was published in Geneva by the IAEA, so it seems likely that the IAEA has the copyright and that Swiss law applies. The {{PD-AustrianGov}} tag may be based on the IAEA headquarters being in Vienna, but this cannot apply as the IAEA is not a branch of the Austrian government. There is a clean copy of the document here. The page that links to it has a copyright declaration. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I am also concerned that the highlighting and underlining in the images are not in the cited source [4]. These appear to be a commentary on the content, the author of which is undisclosed. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The document was authored by the U.S. and N.K. governments, being an agreement between them. The publisher is irrelevant. As the cover page says, it was sent to IAEA members for informational purposes, but they are not the author and would not own any copyright. The cover page itself may be different, but there isn't much copyrightable there. Treaties would generally come under {{PD-EdictGov}} in any event. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Senior Wikipedia Users,

Thank you for your time and effort for answering my inquiry.
As a new user of the Wiki Commmons, it is difficult for me to understand the necessary licenses.
As an interim task, I removed the highlighting and underlining in the original images(pdf file).
Please guide me the necessary license tag and possibility of underlining or highlighting on this file.

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: If IAEA holds the copyright then these will probably have to be deleted, unless we can establish that an exception applies such as {{PD-USGov}}, {{PD-EdictGov}}, or something similar relating to Switzerland, Austria or the UN. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: Thank you for your response. Please guide me where can I find the clear picture of the copyright holder whether it is U.S., UN , Austria or IAEA if possible. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I replaced the license by {{PD-EdictGov}}, as suggested by Carl above. I hope it is OK now. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

{{PD-EdictGov}} looks wrong because this document does not appear to be an edict, and it is published by the IAEA which is not a government agency. This is an agreement between the US and North Korean governments, brokered by the IAEA. My view is that IAEA holds the copyright, but it may be public domain. A better tag might be {{PD-UN-doc}}, but it is unclear whether the IAEA can be treated as as a UN agency in this respect. w:en:IAEA says:

Though established independently of the United Nations through its own international treaty, the IAEA Statute, the IAEA reports to both the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council.

The IAEA website has copyright notices for their scientific and technical publications.[5][6]. These are not Commons-compatible, but is this a technical publication? Verbcatcher (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion for this quite tricky inquiry,
From my understanding, it would be more proper tag below as it is official agreement between U.S. and DPRK.

{{PD-UN-doc}},

I don't believe that it is a scientific or technical publications example- details about configuration or program regarding nuclear technology. As an interim solution. I think we might be able to add the licence tag: : {{PD-UN-doc}} to the file. Thank you for your kind support again Goodtiming8871 (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It was not authored by either the UN or the IAEA; they do not own the copyright and those tags really have no validity here. It does not matter if the IAEA published it -- they were not the author and can't license it. PD-USGov and PD-EdictGov probably both apply. A treaty has legal effect, which citizens have a right to know, which is the theory behind PD-EdictGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright tag question

I want to upload a file that combines two Commons files of ancient Chinese characters (File:ACC-L21834.svg and File:業-bigseal.svg) but am unsure what tag is appropriate. Any help would be appreciated. Keahapana (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest using the {{Derived from}} tag, and copy or adapt the other tags from the source images. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, add {{Derivative versions}} to the source files, linking to your new file. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Verbcatcher. Where do I put {{Derivative versions}}? Keahapana (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

{{Derivative versions}} goes in File:ACC-L21834.svg and File:業-bigseal.svg. This will help others to find the new file.

Also, you have licensed File:內業-bigseal.svg with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. I think it should be licensed as {{PD-ancient-script}}, because, like the source images, it is a representation of an ancient script. I think your creative action in combining them would not meet the Threshold of originality. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Many thanks. As you can see, I'm a knownothing newbie on Commons, and truly appreciate your helpfulness. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia "Thanks" icon

I am pretty sure that this icon is in the public domain, but I can't find it as File:____.svg in Commons. Am I allowed to upload it? Is it already here? F (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You could try uploading it. If there's an exact duplicate you'll get a warning. Guanaco (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Petillés: It is located at Category:Thanks notifications (subcat of Category:Echo (Notifications) extension). See e.g. this file. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Panoramio user "Majid Majid"

Hi! Per mass deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Panoramio user Majid Majid (Flickr/Panoramio/etc. grabber). 1.586 files already on Commons from around 4.100 files on Panoramio. Is there a way to blacklist the Panoramio user for the @Panoramio upload bot: (like Flickr)? Currently I checked only the tip of the iceberg. Any help to clear the files would be nice... Gunnex (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gunnex: I have asked at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Panoramio user 3018836 (Majid_Majid). — Jeff G. ツ 13:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright note + Creative Commons?

Hi everyone, this file which is currently being used in this article had a copyright note in it which was obviously put in there by the uploader of the file itself. I remarked on this in the article deletion discussion, and the copyright note was removed by another user. The Commons description still has the copyright note though.

I don't really see how all this works together with a Creative Commons license. Can someone who knows their licensing rules straighten this out? Thanks! --87.150.6.215 14:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP, this issue does not concern Commons, as it happened on :de-Wikipedia. It's a long-standing debate whether the authorname should be mentioned in the caption of images on Wikipedia. However, so far, only :no-Wikipedia accepts the authorname in the caption. :de does not. --Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

As to copyright and Creative Commons, I'd also like to note that you do not waive your copyright unless you grant a Creative Commons Zero licence. All -by and -by-sa licenses retain the author's copyright but anyone else gets a permission to use the work. Apart from that, Túrelio is right that such copyright notices are rarely used in Wikipedia. The reason is that the attribution was already made on the file page here at Wikimedia Commons which serves as repository for all Wikipedias. De728631 (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies! Yes, I am aware that by German law we have something yet different from copyright ("Urheberrecht") which I believe you cannot give up even if you tried. What I had been wondering about in this case though was the fact that this person seemed to have so consciously put a copyright note into her work. It seemed to me like she was really stressing that and maybe had not fully understood the rights she was giving up with a Creative Commons license. I guess maybe I'll just address her on her talk page about that issue. Thanks again! --87.150.6.215 17:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually she didn't give up any rights. That's the trick of "normal" CC licenses.

By the way, "Urheberrecht" is just the German term for copyright. What you meant is that our law doesn't allow for copyright either to be transferred to others or to be waived completely. Other countries have different rules though, which is why de:Vorlage:Bild-CC-0 has a different wording than the English version of CC-zero where you waive all rights. De728631 (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, but to the best of my knowledge, Urheberrecht is similar but not quite identical to copyright. This article explains it quite well.

And concerning "not giving up any rights"... well, telling others "You are free to share, to copy, distribute and transmit the work, to remix, to adapt the work" - certainly is giving up some rights IMO, and I do hope authors read that stuff before uploading their files. That's what seemed doubtful to me in this case. --91.34.46.5 17:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

You are the one that mentioned" not giving up any rights". What De728631 said was you do not waive your copyright. Indeed, it is the fact that you have those copyrights in the work that permits you to licence the work. Whether that licence is a commercial one or a Creative Commons one, a licence grants some rights to the licensee. Such as "you are free to share, to copy, etc, etc". It doesn't, for example, let you grant a more permissive licence (e.g. offer a CC BY-NC work with a plain CC BY, or to release it under CC0). The "giving up" is specific only to the licensee, limited in nature, and conditional on certain usage agreements such as attribution. A file under CC BY is still very much "(c) John Smith 2017" and will remain so for 70 years after John Smith's death. -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"Urheberrecht" is just the German implementation of copyright. All countries implement copyright in their own way and there are always some national differences. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The file is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0. When using a file with a copyright notice, pay attention to the licensing terms:

Section 3 – License Conditions.
[...]
a. Attribution.
1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
A. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
ii. a copyright notice;

In other words, the copyright notice must not be removed. I note that it was removed from Wikipedia in this edit by User:PeterGuhl, but § 3 a 2 suggests that it maybe is enough to keep the copyright notice on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Author vs. "own work"

Hi, can someone please help with this: The uploader claims it's his "own work", but according to the metadata, the photographer is a completely different person. Thanks! --91.34.46.5 17:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That the photographer can not be Andreas Klee is also obvious form the fact that the photo shows Andreas Klee. Ruslik (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If copyright was transferred, the copyright owner can be different than the author. But, we would probably prefer some OTRS evidence of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of micrographs

Through uni I've got access to lots of good microscopy slides prepared by others. If I take a micrograph using a slide someone else has made, do I own the copyright? They're slides of natural specimens, like insects and micro-organisms and cross-sections of worms and so on. Some are treated with stains. I'm asking here rather than at helpdesk, because whatever the answer, it would be good if Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter could be updated accordingly. I couldn't find the answer in Commons:2D copying, Commons:FAQ#Copyright questions or Commons:Threshold of originality, nor in the helpdesk archives here or at Wikipedia. I'm in Australia, if that matters. Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that slices of natural objects are protected by copyright. There is nothing creative about them. However, any images of them will be protected as any other images. Ruslik (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm working this from US copyright law, because that's what I'm familiar with; but I don't see why slices of natural objects would be less protected by copyright than any other way of producing a 2D graphical work. There's a lot of creative choice about what specimens to use and how to cut them and how (and if) to stain them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Compendium from the US Copyright Office, Section 906.7 (page 15 in Section 900) seems to say that the US Copyright Office would not register this for copyright. So I will reverse my opinion, and go with Ruslik.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Right, was going to mention that a natural object should not be the subject of copyright, but hadn't looked up which Compendium section dealt with that, so thank you ;-) "Choices were made" does not necessarily mean something is copyrightable (at least in the U.S.) -- per the compendium (section 310.8), The creative process often requires many choices involving the size, coloring, orientation, proportion, configuration, perspective, or other constituent elements of the work. These types of choices are present in every work of authorship. It is not the variety of choices available to the author that must be evaluated, but the actual work that the author created. The photograph would be borderline for a copyright, but may be possible -- you'd have to distinguish it from Corel v Bridgeman. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ruslik, Prosfilaes and Carl Lindberg. Based on the link Prosfilaes provided, if polishing and mounting a stone is considered de minimis, then presumably slicing and staining a worm would be, too.

The photograph would be borderline for a copyright - When I asked whether I'd own the copyright, I was thinking the alternative would be the person who made the slide owning the copyright. It hadn't occurred to me that some micrographs might not be copyrightable at all. Is it fine for me to upload them with the default CC BY-SA 4.0 license which, as I understand it, implicitly asserts ownership of copyright? Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That will be fine. Ruslik (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. The threshold of originality varies by country; having an explicit license ensures there's not a problem anywhere, even if it's not needed in some countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks everyone. I still think it would be worth adding micrographs to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter if someone's keen, but if not, at least this thread will be searchable in the archives. Adrian J. Hunter (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Uploading four maps

Hi there. Could someone upload these four historic maps? [7]-[8]-[9]-[10]. I'm having difficulties trying to save them. You can use this link for the license (taken from the site itself).[11] Thanks much in advance, - LouisAragon (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: The license listed is CC BY-NC-SA (NonCommercial), and we can't accept that. See Commons:Licensing. However, these are old books in the public domain, so scans of them are also in the public domain. If you list the file names you want for them, I'll upload them for you. Guanaco (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Guanaco: , awesome!

File pic #1: "Persia, Caspian Sea, part of Independent Tartary, by Herman Moll (pub. 1736)".
File pic #2: "Map of Persia by David Rumsey (pub. 1808)".
File pic #3: "La Perse la Georgie et la Turquie d'Asie, by Nicolas de Fer (pub. 1717)".
File pic #4: "Persia by Tom Johnson (pub. 1817)".
File pic #5 (just added this one): "Safavid Empire, Ottoman Empire, and Russia, by Joachim Ottens (pub. 1720, Amsterdam)".

Thanks alot! - LouisAragon (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Herman Moll. Persia, Caspian Sea, part of Independent Tartary. 1736.jpg already exists; the file I tried to upload was an exact duplicate. The fifth file will take some effort to extract, as they've used technical measures to prevent downloading. I've uploaded the other three.

Guanaco (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Irish Lights Commissioners, before 1970

I'm in the process of uploading old flags, and this one accidentally got through my date filter. I was going to speedy it, but I'm unsure if there might be a reason to consider it a public domain work. This flag was superseded in 1970, but I do not have a start date for the design. Anyone have insights for copyright of this type of flag? --Fæ (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Decent chance of PD-IrishGov , though not sure if they are exactly a government agency. According to this, the general design has existed for a long time. It is described from a 1961 book there, and the graphic says it is based on a 1939 version. Not sure when the particular graphic in that flag was designed though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright Appeals Board decisions

It looks like the U.S. Copyright Office is putting their Appeals Board decisions online, and searchable too.

https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/index.html

Previously, ipmall.info would obtain a couple years worth of decisions and put them up from time to time, but these should get updated a lot more regularly, and be easier to find certain subject areas. There are some interesting recent ones, like a Nikon logo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Three that stand out for me are https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/smartsign.pdf and https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/pizza-slice-pool-float.pdf, which are two of the more complex figures (a security camera and a slice of pizza) to be ruled as uncopyrightable, and https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/a-little-bit-bad.pdf , which is a two sentence, 27 word joke that's apparently copyrightable. (And https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/pseudocode.pdf , which won't matter for Commons, but it is interesting that pseudocode is harder to copyright than working code.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Can this image be in cc-by-nc-nd license?

Hello! I'm working on an article and there are some interesting original works from year 1516 that has been scanned by the Government of Navarre and published under a cc-by-nc-nd license. It seems strange for me that an original file from 1516 can be licensed in this way. Are they right or a PD-Old applies here? -Theklan (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Theklan: Use {{PD-scan|PD-old-100-1923}} for the license. Guanaco (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"All rights reserved" but also free to use?

Can someone please take a look at this page? At the bottom it says "All rights reserved" (Sva prava pridržana) but right underneath it says that "the content of these pages can be used without special permission quoting their source" (Sadržaji s ovih stranica se mogu prenositi bez posebne dozvole uz navođenje izvora). Does that make it okay to use on the Commons/Wikipedia or not? Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

A phrase like "All rights reserved" means that the image is protected by copyright i.e. it is not in public domain. However the copyright owner can allow its use under certain conditions. In this case the only condition is attribution. So, it looks broadly compatible with {{Cc-by-4.0}}. Ruslik (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Do you think that "used" in this context allows for derivative works? Storkk (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's fantastic! I should also note that we already have at least one file uploaded from that website. It's been here for four years, so I imagine it has passed some tests already or at least been noticed & approved by knowledgeable users. Surtsicna (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"All Rights Reserved" was the traditional phrase associated with the w:Buenos Aires Convention, to indicate that copyright is claimed (and thus exists) on the work. It was often combined with the copyright notice, which was required (for the same basic purpose) by first the U.S. and later the w:Universal Copyright Convention. So, all it really means is that a copyright is claimed -- but of course that copyright can then be licensed as the copyright owner sees fit (such as with CC-BY). The need to make such claims is now basically in the past and their use is more a habit, but there is still some value in keeping with them since anyone who infringes on a work where they were blatantly reminded of the copyright cannot possibly be considered to have innocently or accidentally infringed.

As for whether "used" incorporates all uses, it may well be reasonable to assume so. If you give that license, there does not seem to be a restriction. If you want to not allow commercial use, or not allow derivative works, you would normally need to explicitly say that (define what you mean by "use", if something other than open-ended). The question is if there is sort of an implied standard to such things, and if courts would allow them to qualify such licenses later to be more restrictive. I would suspect that commercial use might be the one most often not considered by someone giving out a quick permission to use. But if an organization (and lawyers) knowingly make such a statement, it may be more reasonable to assume open-ended use. There is rarely ever certainty in such things -- an explicit license like CC-BY always helps if that truly is the intent. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

[[:]]

How do think about this file? Are all used logos below treshold or should it be deleted as copyvio? — Speravir – 22:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

COM:TOYS question

Can Commons accept File:Spiker The Cars.JPG, File:McMissile.JPG, File:Profesor Z.JPG, File:Kötü araba - Arabalar.JPG, File:Ford The Cars.JPG, File:Sherrif of Radiator Spring.JPG and File:Çavuş.JPG as licensed per COM:TOYS? They were all uploaded by Vikiçizer as "own work" and I believe that the uploader probably took the photos; the underlying toy imagery, however, might be copyrighted (even if they were uploader's own "models" based upon actual characters from en:Cars (franchise)) thus making them each derivative works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: These are definitely not okay. We'll have to start a DR. Guanaco (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for starting Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cars (film). — Jeff G. ツ 12:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on these Guanaco. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Mentor of The Face Vietnam season

The Exif data for this photo, shows the phrase "VIETQUY-0937178993" as author and the copyright holder while Lankhuefc is described as the author in the summary. Is there any problem? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The same applies to File:Khue Khue LG.jpg. This was also uploaded by Lankhuefc, who has recently uploaded nine images the other seven of which are tagged with licensing issues. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein VIETQUY was the photographer who took those photos, however, the ownership of those photos were Lan Khue offcial (registered email: lankhuefc@gmail.com). There's no problem with using those photos on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankhuefc (talk • contribs) 10:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lankhuefc: VIETQUY should be mentioned as the author and Lan Khue offcial needs to contact COM:OTRS and prove that it owns the photos. The files will be removed otherwise. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Museu Paulista issue

Hi guys, we all know the Jcb and his... temper, posture. And again he is created a issue where, for me and others, there is not.

Could you check this:Commons:Deletion requests/Files from Museu Paulista (GLAM initiative)?

An update, to force a deletion he reverted the merge. So:
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:José Wasth Rodrigues
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Henrique Manzo
Same issue, same solution. But divide to conquest...

Just a a small summary:

This is a GLAM initiative, that belongs to digitalisation programme conducted by Brazilians volunteers, is the third museum of the programme and it is one of the biggest in Latin America, unfortunately closed to repairs.

They already digitalised their collection, and now are opening via Commons, we can access their digital collection via a bureaucrat system. They also have a established system to sell the publication/reproduction even with a price table:[12]

As you can see, they have being selling the reproduction, and publications of part of their collection, simply because they have the rights to do it, okay? Okay.

Now Jcb is questioning if they have the right to do it, and requesting absurd as "We need to see a statement from the (heirs of the) artist.". And now start to lying saying: "At this moment we have even nothing at all from the museum", but..

They already provided not only an OTRS, saying that they are sharing their collection to the Humanity, but also published an opened letter in their website:[13] sign by their Director.

It's not our paper questioned the Museum, is our paper guarantee that we have enough documentation to bring free material. If the Museum is not right, after we provide all the information to do the right thing, is out of our scope. When they established the partnership, this project pass trough a lot of hands that analysed the project, and sign for it. The Museum is legally responsible for this sharing here, and they have know-how about their collection and the legal consequences of it, they have people to analyse the use of their material, they know what they are doing.

And even if a problem appears, well, we have all documentation that MP is responsible for it.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 15:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

So after tampering with the DRs now you start forum shopping? A museum is seldom the copyright holder of the works they have in their building. In these cases the authors are known and they died less than 70 years ago, so permission has to come from the heirs of the authors, unless we have evidence that the authors transfered the copyright to the museum. Such evidence is currently not in the OTRS ticket. Jcb (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Well... I was writing here, and you misuse the sysops tool to force the DR to be divided again, just to votes do not count for both entrances...

Provide sources that I tampered.

Again, is not our paper questioned the Museum after they give documentation. And this is not a "forum for shopping", is to have more opinion, if you let. We already hear from you, now let other provide their thongs.

I know that your aggressivity is a manoeuvrer to stop any discussion, but I will insist.

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton^m 15:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

what a wonderful "greeting by wall of impersonal deletion notifications"! so good to make policy by DR. why waste words on user talk pages. is it good for you? i guess we will tell all institutions to email Jcb personally for his permission to upload here. then we will all know what is acceptable here: no consensus required. let's add a filter to upload wizard for Jcb permission. clearly we are playing in his sandbox. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Strangely credited photo

Can someone untangle the unclear authorship statement of this file, please? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Judging from the original upload log text, the original author was Schurl at German Wikipedia. Hieke uploaded a retouched version and that's it. De728631 (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

But did Schurl took the photo? Or is it just cropped from an information board shown at the location? And if so, what should be done about authorship? Are there FoP implications? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Oramics Machine & recorded sound by Daphne Oram.ogv

I suspect that the sound track of File:Oramics Machine & recorded sound by Daphne Oram.ogv may be a copyright violation.

This is a video recording of an Oramics electronic music synthesizer displayed in the Science Museum in London. The synthesizer is playing music composed by Daphne Oram (1925–2003). The music is defined by shapes drawn on strips of film that are read by the synthesizer, which were presumably prepared by Oram herself. Do audio clips of music on Commons need copyright clearance from the composer as well as from the performers? Is Oram the performer in this case? There is no evidence of permission from Oram's estate. (ping @Clusternote: ) Verbcatcher (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Verbcatcher: Yes to both. i think it is a copyright violation. — Jeff G. ツ 01:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

en:File:BMW Sauber F1 Team logo.png

en:File:BMW Sauber F1 Team logo.png has been uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content. File:BMW logo.svg is licensed as PD and many of the files listed in Category:BMW roundel logos are similar to the non-free one in that the roundel appears to be the only copyrightable element being shown. So, I am wondeirng if there's is any reason why Commons would not treat the non-free team logo also as PD. Just want to make sure before I change the local file's licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The logo for BMW Sauber F1 Team is likely to be below the threshold of originality in USA and may be even in Germany - it is just a text with a few shades of gray added plus a small BMW logo which is similarly just simple shapes and a text. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Do you mean "below the threshold of originality"? — Jeff G. ツ 01:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I meant that. Ruslik (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Glam project - Derivative works of Picasso works

Please someone very expert, better with an otrs flag, could express his own opinion on this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Italia, 1958) - BEIC 6341427.jpg. --Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

VOA Indonesia YouTube Channel

Hi everyone. I was wondering if Template:VOA applies to the VOA Indonesia YouTube channel, for materials produced by VOA Indonesia. As a government-funded news organization, it should be public domain, but the videos seem to be listed as "Standard YouTube License". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

If a material is really produced by VOA then the template applies. However the youtube channel can have materials, which are not produced by VOA. Ruslik (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm very aware of the need to check whether materials were produced by VOA. Hence "for materials produced by VOA Indonesia." I was curious about the notice; the US government has special notices on Flickr and whatnot for public domain works. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not think any notice on the Youtube can abrogate the general copyright statement that all VOA works are in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

A couple of coins

Hi everyone. I was wondering if any one could tell me whether its possible (policy wise) to upload these coins.[14]-[15]-[16]-[17]-[18]-[19]-[20]-[21]-[22]-[23] And if so, which tag I need to use. Thanks much in advance, - LouisAragon (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

The coins are in public domain due to their age. You can use {{Pd-art}} on the them. Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet says that such photos are copyrightable and thus can't be uploaded unless you took them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Prosfilaes, sufficiently old coins are in the public domain, but photographs of them are not. The linked images should not be uploaded. This issue has been raised here before, including at:

A Wikimedia lawyer supported this view in 2007, see w:en:Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 25#Photographs of ancient coins Verbcatcher (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Unlike slavish copies of two diminutional artworks, coins although flat are 3 dimensional. Thus, they will require the photographer's OTRS for them to be uploaded here. Whilst it may be in the photographers interests to submit a OTRS (for it will bring his skills to a wider audience) you will first have to contact him/her through the website from which you found these images. Then, persuade the photographer to submit an OTRS. Think, that most would not feel bothered enough to reply but you might find one or two that have many other images that they would like to share. Although we can not advertise here, it is perfectly OK to offer a link back to their studio website when quoting the 'Source' of the image. Keep in mind too, that these auction coin dealers may (probably do) have their own in-house photographer. So for instance here on : [24] their comments on copyright is just a boiler-plate guide. Any email to them my be replied with : Yes. You can reproduce them but for a fee! Which is no good to us. Yet think think outside the box and experiment. Use your first emails to find out who the sales and marketing person is and only then, put it to them that although WC can't be used to promote a company, if they 'freely' donate images, the source box can include a link back to them. Point out too, that anyone interested in adding to their collection of coins (possible future customers) will be studying our images and so it is in the auction-house/photographer's interests to summit as many OTRS's as they can. It will require a lot of emails to go back and forth but you might be able to significantly enable more images to be ' legitimately' added. Experiment and don't be afraid to get it wrong on the first or second attempt P.g.champion (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Buildings under construction?

We have a number of images of buildings that are under construction in countries without freedom of panorama, where the images would be not allowed if the buildings were completed. We even have whole categories for such images, some made by me (see, for example, Skyscraper construction in the United Arab Emirates). I've looked for some guidelines about such images here on commons but I haven't found anything. Are they allowed because the building is incomplete, and therefore, not eligible for copyright? Or are the allowed only when the building's final form is not apparent and as a result, the construction does not yet meet the threshold of originality?

Specific cases currently under discussion include

Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why it would matter that the building is incomplete, why would copyright start from when the building is finished? If that was the case, we could easily dodge copyright restrictions by just using images from the very last stages of construction. The exterior is likely to be 100% complete, but as the interior is still being finished, the building is still "under construction".

I'd just accept those when the building's final facade isn't apparent (or is visible as de minimis). A close-up of a finished section is likely to be a problem, even if the building as a whole is still covered in scaffold; while an image of the a building covered in scaffold is likely fine, even though the top floor is visible.

IMO that's no different to other works. Leaked scripts, incomplete books, or unfinished paintings may not be the final form of the work, but would surely be protected by copyright.--Nilfanion (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It can also be a threshold of originality issue. Is a thing like File:Burj_Khalifa_2005-11-04.jpg copyrightable? --ghouston (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. That's a clear example where the threshold of originality is not met, Ghouston, since the building only began construction in 2004, but what about an image like this from 2009, a matter of months before the building opened (File:The Burj Dubai (3337137245).jpg) or this one from a few months earlier (File:Burj Dubai 02.12.2007.jpg)? I don't really understand why we still have these, so I thought there might be some other principle at play. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Uploads by Muhammad Abbas Akbari

Would someone mind taking a look at File:Logo Riyadh summit.png, File:Quaid-e-Azam International Airport Birds-eye view.jpg, File:Flags of the countries which will be taking part in the Summit.jpg and File:Pakistan-flag-wallpapers-wide.jpg? They were all uploaded by the same uploader under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license, which seems incorrect. The airport photo seems for to sure to need permission given the watermark and the source, whereas the Pakastani flag wallpaper may be PD. I am not sure about the Riyadh summit files; the source url is dead, but I found an archived version here. Perhaps the logo is simple enough for {{PD-logo}}, but the photo might at least require permission because the content on that website does not appear to have been released under a CC license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Done The first one might be simple enough. I tagged the rest, and warned this user. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on these Yann. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright of image

The image File:Siri Samanthabhadra.jpg, uploaded as "own work" by Sharkya108, is a copy of one at http://www.ashramaya.org/ . That page states at the bottom "© 2017 - Siri Sadaham Monastery". Is this the right page to report a probable copyright violation? Maproom (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, The image on the website is not the source. The image on Commons is probably the original file. The EXIF data says the author is "Sharkya Mendez", who is most probably Sharkya108. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Could this image come to commons?

Image in question is en:File:Diagram of selected characters in the novel Doctor Zhivago by Pasternak.jpg. The whole diagram has been constructed by en:User:Drochtegang, showing the selected character's relationships to each other in the novel Doctor Zhivago (the diagram does not appear in the book!). The author set up the image as non-free, as he thinks that, as it's using the information from the novel, then it becomes a derivative work of Boris Pasternak. We had a nice discussion on en-wiki - en:User_talk:Ronhjones#deleted_image - about it, but I think we could benefit from more opinions, so I've undeleted the image to allow viewing and hopefully some assistance. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

American football team uniforms uploaded by Garethom

I occasionaly see sport team uniforms uupload to Commons and recently came across File:BullsUniform2.png uploaded by Garethom. While the jersey and pants might be OK, I'm wondering about the helmet logo because Wikipedia treats en:File:Birminghambullslogo.png as non-free content. Would the Commons' file be considered a derivative work or can the helmet part be treated as de minimis or as "own work". The same editor has uploaded other similar files as "own work" which might need to be checked too. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Gravestone photo File:Lincoln Johnson Ragsdale, Sr.jpg

File:Lincoln Johnson Ragsdale, Sr.jpg was uploaded as own work to Commons. I believe the uploader took the actually photo, but I am not sure about the copyright of the photo being photographed. If it's acceptable for Commons, the non-free en:File:Lincoln Ragsdale.jpg would no longer be needed per en:WP:NFCC#1. How does Commons typically deal with gravestone photos such as this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sadly, unless the original photograph copyright is known, then this not suitable for hosting on Commons. Phoenix copyright law applies, in other countries a photograph like this being permanently displayed in a cemetery may fall under Freedom of Panorama if it exists in that country.

A bit of research may show that the photograph was a standard one taken in service, and so may be assessed as public domain as a US Military work. However many service personnel have a good portrait taken privately when they first get their uniform, so it cannot be automatically presumed. --Fæ (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look Fæ. I posted something on the uploader's user talk about this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Company logo

Hi, could someone who knows what they are doing please check this? Isn't a company logo usually copyrighted? What makes me feel additionally doubtful is the fact that the uploader appears to have uploaded several pictures with similar names in the past, all of which have been deleted. --91.34.36.73 20:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Only text and simple shapes. The deleted images were photos Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe de.wikipedia.org has much lower standards than we do (or non at all). If this article appeared on english WP it would get speedily deleted as being promotional and non-notable with only advitorials as references rather than RS. As for the logo, the company website says they own the copyright to everything and WC does not accept 'free use' images. So yes, delete it and the article. P.g.champion (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about lower standards in the German WP in general, but that's a different issue. I have certainly seen articles of equal or lesser quality on the English WP which had by no means been speedily deleted but had been sitting there for years. I personally believe that that kind of thing is almost unavoidable in a project with as many articles as WP.

But that's a different issue altogether. This is about the logo only, and I think you have got a point about the company having a clear copyright rule on their website which appears to include all graphics. So, how does this work now? I have no idea how to start this deleting procedure... Thanks! --87.150.3.79 06:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

O.k., I tried... hope I did this correctly now. --87.150.3.79 09:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Delegates to the Queensland Police Union Third Annual Conference.jpg

Might this actually be {{PD-Australia}}? The current claimed source & license seems a bit of a mess: attributed to a museum as the source, but no indication of a source where they granted the claimed CC-BY-SA 4.0 license.

@Rocketrod1960: You uploaded this, can you shed any light? - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Unverified license

Hello.Is this license acceptable?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It's just the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, one of the most common on Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I do not mean the type of license, I mean the license of Source and author:Is the source really free and licensed by the author?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not read Russian, but at the bottom of that page, the website administrator nominates CC by-sa 3.0 --Ruthven (msg) 09:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

French Coat of Arms licensing / File:Saint-Macaire 33 Sceau.JPG

I converted a image from commons to a vector and I started the upload process and pulled up the source raster image so I could get the relevant licensing, description, category, etc details only to realize I may have wasted my time in converting the image. The raster image that I converted is File:Saint-Macaire 33 Sceau.JPG, I haven't completed the upload process of the vector because I don't believe the licensing information for that image is correct. Is any one aware of any French Coat of Arm copyright law that would allow that image to remain here since I don't believe the {{PD-textlogo}} license is correct. - Offnfopt^(talk) 21:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

No, don't know of anything. It looks like a photograph of a wall (doors?), and the photo probably qualifies for PD-Art, but completely unsure about the underlying graphic. It looks to be the same as the graphic at http://saintmacaire.fr . Actually... I bet that graphic was made from this photo, as you see the vertical line and the two doorknobs in the graphic which don't appear to be part of the actual seal design. This page documents a similar graphic used on official documents 20 years ago, but it's less detailed. Not sure where the graphic comes from. I do see a similar graphic on an informational sign outside a school in the town using Google street view here, which may itself be old enough to be PD; this graphic looks like a simplified/vectorized version of that but unsure about when it would have been made. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought it looks like a possible photo of doors also, but I'm not 100% sure. I found this image File:Saint-Macaire église St-Sauveur Clef de voûte narthex b.jpg of a keystone that was put in place in 1878, it has a some similarities, but it is so different that I doubt it is of any help. Looks like I'm currently at a stand still but thanks for taking the time to try to find more information. - Offnfopt^(talk) 15:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I found a note of the coat of arms in this document about the history of Saint Macaire(alternative link pg 349), but it is in French and the google translation doesn't seem right, so not 100% if it is of any use. From what I gathered, it talks about reinstating the coat of arms, but like I said the translation wasn't 100%. - Offnfopt^(talk) 19:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I saw something about towns reinstating their coats of arms after Napoleon was kicked out in 1815 or so, and this town was one of them -- so the general design / blazon existed from then. Not that that really matters for copyright. If I had to guess, someone took that old graphic visible in Google Street View and vectorized it for use on those doors, wherever they are. But the town website then used the photo here to create their graphic for the website. It would probably be best to find that old graphic and vectorize from that directly, but no clue where to find it. Whether a re-vectorization contains expression from the one on the door, as opposed to the old graphic, is one of those gray-area questions, somewhat dependent on the details of how it was created. Which we don't know much about. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you inquire at fr:Projet:Blasons. They're more directly concerned with the topic.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Portlandia wide.jpg

File is licensed as {{Cc-by-4.0}} which is fine for the photo, but may not be acceptable for the statue depicted in the photograph. According to en:Portlandia (statue), the statue was installed in 1985, so it's certainly not old enough for PD and there's no FOP for statues (even publically installed) in the United States per COM:FOP#United States, so it seems the permssion is needed from the artist who created the work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Also File:Portlandia close up.jpg. Also, there are no links to source Flickr images or any other confirmation of the licenses assigned for the photographs. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The flickr image page would be this, still tagged CC-by-nd, despite a vague permission to use added in the comments section. In that page, the flickr photographer even copied, without credit or license, the text of the Wikipedia article (2008 version) about the statue, where it is specified that the sculptor is closely guarding his intellectual property. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that link Asclepias. The comments about the photo are intersting since there only seems to be concern expressed about infringing on the copyright of the photo (which is an issue) but nothing about the statue itself. I'm assuming that the photographer and uploader just were unaware of FOP, but it seems that this leaves us no choice than to take this to DRV. Also, the fact that a Wikipedia article was copied and pasted into the discussion also does not indicate the photographer is very familiar with Wikpedia's licensing. Finally, the "cc-by-nd" licensing means that Commons couldn’t even except the photo if the statue was PD because it does not allow for derivative works. Maybe a DR is not needed after all since there are essentially two copyright violations for the same file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: Thank you for your deletions and explanations, but please be aware that this deletion log entry shows that such log has its limits. If you (or any Admin) feel you need that much text to explain, please consider using a DR, as suggested by Marchjuly above (or in this case of already-deleted files, an UDR). — Jeff G. ツ 14:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the deletion log was a copy paste of a speedy deletion rationale written by Marchjuly. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The script pastes it for us when we press the trash can button. Although no-FoP is not a valid reason for speedy deletion, 'ND at source' is. That's why I deleted those files. Jcb (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Just to clarify, the "explanation" was mine and perhaps the log can be altered to show the rest which included links showing the nd licenses for each file. I suggested DR above, but did some more digging after Asclepias posted the first time and found that the other photo was also licensed on Flickr under a "nd" license. So, that is why I tagged it with {{SD|F4}} per COM:CSD#F4 instead. I hinted at this in my last post with Maybe a DR is not needed after all since there are essentially two copyright violations for the same file, but should've updated further after tagging the files. I didn't realize the wordiness of the "reason for deletion" i added to the speedy template would be cause problems with the log, but the unseen rest was about the nd license for the Flickr photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks. — Jeff G. ツ 23:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jcb: Thanks, which script? — Jeff G. ツ 23:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Admins have various small scripts to facilitate admin tasks. One of those is a trash can button below all deletion templates that opens a deletion window in which the nomination reason is inserted automatically into the 'reason' field. Jcb (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to add some of Dr. Seuss' Japanese Internment cartoons

I see one of his cartoons from that era is here already (File:Dr Seuss and the wolf chewed up the children.jpg) but I don't know how to go about checking the copyright status of his others from that time. This article has the cartoons in question: http://www.openculture.com/2014/08/dr-seuss-draws-racist-anti-japanese-cartoons-during-ww-ii.html Thanks for any help or advice. H0n0r (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The source of File:Dr Seuss and the wolf chewed up the children.jpg is https://library.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dswenttowar/index.html which states that "This website makes these cartoons available to all internet users." so... free to upload to wikimedia? H0n0r (talk)

The comments at UCSD are not useful for our purposes. They're not stating anything clear about the copyright status of the cartoons. "Copyright: Unknown", the works "may be protected", "Responsibility [...] rests exclusively with the user". -- Asclepias (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You must check if the copyright was renewed, under the names under which it could possibly have been renewed, e.g. Field Publications, Marshall Field, PM Magazine, Theodor Geisel, Dr. Seuss, etc., in the renewals sections of the relevant copyright catalogs, e.g. periodicals, artworks, etc., for the years surrounding the publication year + 28, e.g. circa 1969 for a cartoon published in 1941. You can use this webpage as a useful starting point to find the pages of the relevant catalogs for the relevant years. I looked quickly in the 1969 catalogs and found no renewals there about PM Magazine or about cartoons by Dr. Seuss, but you should check more deeply. Also, for what it's worth, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:10425cs.jpg from ten years ago, where such cartoons were deleted. I'm not convinced by the deletion rationale that was used there, which seems to require proving a negative, which would imply that the template PD-US-not renewed could never be used. Usually, when a diligent search has shown that no renewal has been found in the catalogs or anywhere, Commons assumes that there was no renewal. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you so much! This does seem like it's going to be very tricky to prove. I've found a notice for Marshall Fields for The Field Glass in 1970... this is going to be a long investigation I guess. Thank you - I appreciate it. H0n0r (talk)

@H0n0r: If you find no renewals after you check all the reasonable possibilities, then before you upload cartoons, it would probably be a good idea to begin by testing an undeletion request about the cartoons that were deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:10425cs.jpg. You'll see what people there think. If they decide that those files will not be restored, then you should probably not upload other cartoons from the same origin, unless there's a reason to make a distinction. If they decide to restore the files, then it will probably mean that the other cartoons from the same origin can be uploaded. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That was 10 years ago, before renewal volumes were online and searchable, so we almost never were able to keep works which required a renewal check. It is at least now possible, though arduous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

yes text search of pdf's has improved. we need to encourage the LOC to make online search easier. but not really tricky or arduous, merely arcane, and no yes / no answer - not finding any matches in 1969 periodicals http://www.archive.org/stream/catalogofcopy19693232libr#page/n0/mode/1up/search/PM+magazine Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Freedom of panorama#Lebanon

Hello.The case of the country is contrary to Lebanese law.Please correct to OK and correct these cases.Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

What part is inaccurate? The English translation of the law says FoP rights are limited to "the media", which is not everyone. If that clause started with "It shall be permitted" like nearby clauses do instead of "The media shall be permitted", it would be OK, but it would seem as though there is an intentional restriction on who can use the FoP clause. If there is a newer law, or there is a problem in translation or interpretation, please elaborate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems to come down to this question: "Is WikiMedia 'media' under Lebanon's laws" LeadSongDog (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." FoP has its own bunch of issues, but those are the rules that Wikimedia Commons has chosen to work under, so yes, Lebanon's laws are relevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

i've heard that "the media" is a limitation. is not commons the media? when we peer produce content, are we not all the media, i.e. everyone? parsing legal texts without cases is nonsense. i.e. has anyone ever been taken to court about this license? i would like to see it to believe it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It really depends on what Lebanese law means with "the media". Maybe there's a special definition which is obvious from other laws or documents. Are you free to print a photo of a house on clothes? Does a t-shirt or a postcard count as "the media"? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

If they specify "the media", then obviously they mean to exclude someone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Commons may well be included in the "media", but everyone isn't -- and to be "free", everyone must be able to use it on those terms. Similarly, we do not accept "Wikipedia-only" licenses. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)