Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/04

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.

Photos of guns

Hayyanhami is a new account which has upload quite a number of photos of guns since being created. All of these photos are licensed as "own work" and are listed as "Cross-wiki upload from en.wikipedia.org". Can Commons keep these as licensed? Is it possible for the design, etc. of a gun to be protected by copyright? Moreover, some of these images like File:SMG FN-P90.png, File:HK UMP45.jpg and File:H&K MP5.jpg can be seen used online at websites such as here, here and here. I only randomly picked three of the images and searched for them, but my guess is that, even if the guns themselves are not subject to copyright, the photos of them probably came from somewhere else, possibly even the same website. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

A typical set of files found on the Web and then uploaded to Commons. I have nominated them for deletion – regular deletion, although IMO at least some of them qualify for speedy deletion. --jdx ^Re: 02:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The guns themselves wouldn‘t likely fall under copyright, as utilitarian objects covered by industrial-design & patent law instead, although I suppose some extensive decorations or non-practical, exotic forms might qualify as artworks. Of course the photos will be copyrightable regardless.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Jdx and Odysseus1479 for taking a look. I could see the logic behind considering the guns "utilitarian objects", but it also seemed unlikely that the uploader personally own all of these guns and took photos of them. Just out of curiosity, suppose the guns were toy guns. Would COM:TOYS apply to them? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Probably not, if you are talking about things like squirt guns. They are utilitarian. The concept of a board game is also utilitarian. Any artworks on toys can be copyrighted though and the same would be true for sculptures that are part of a board game. Lego bricks are not copyrightable either. There is a reason they put the word "Lego" on every single peg. - Alexis Jazz 10:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Im hayyanhami. I just recognized that I uploaded files with wrong information. These are not my files. I have references but when I was uploading in Wikipedia it changed the ownership of the photos to be mine... I can add the resources but at first I need to remove the files. I can't delete files. Help me please! Hayyan— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayyanhami (talk • contribs) 22:28, April 1, 2018 (UTC+9)

Done Deleted as per Hayyan above. Yann (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayyanhami (talk • contribs) 22:39, April 1, 2018 (UTC+9)

File:Detroit Police Department badge.jpg

Claim of "own work" seems incorrect and I don't think the State of Michigan or the City of Detroit have released content created by their employees as part of their official duties into the public doimain like some other state governments have. Searching for the badge gets lots of hits, but those could be just using the Commons file like this one. I wasn't able to find anything out about the badge on the official website of the Detroit Police Department, but the content of that website is protected by copyright. Can Commons keep this as licensed? File:Badge of a Detroit Police Department officer.png also is another image of the same badge. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Polish 1946 banknotes

Hi, More opinions needed Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Polish 1946 banknotes. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

File:GabrielBeniaminLes.jpg

This image received its OTRS ticket on March 19 and it is apparently valid. So, can an Admin someone close the DR on this image and pass (review) it please? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sealle (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank You Sealle. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Portraits Copyright Rules

I have some few questions. I have already uploaded images to Commons, but those images were mine. I mean, I had taken the pictures. Unfortunately, I'm not very experienced on Copyright issues, so I have some doubts. 1: If a person is willing to give in an image she/he owns to me to upload using my account. Is that possible? Is that "legal", according to Commons's rules? If it`s possible what would I have to do? What kind authorization would I have to have? 2: People's pics posted on Flickr. Which are the copyright's rules? 3: People's pics posted on social networks like Facebook or Instagram. Which are the copyright's rules? 4: Oficial portraits, like a president or a mayor portrait. Which are the copyright's rules?. Sorry for so many questions. If someone could help me I would really appreciate. Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@SirEdimon:

Yes, there is a specific procedure for others to verify permission for individual images, or to authorize your account for uploading on their behalf. Make sure they understand the implications of a free licence, that anyone can use the image for any purpose (possibly with attribution as well, depending on the licence). See COM:OTRS for instructions and a sample permission letter.
The copyright status of each Flickr image is shown on its description page, with icons and brief statements like “Some rights reserved”. Expand or click through to see the actual licence; please see COM:LIC for which ones are accepted here.
Usually no good as a source; social-network sites generally claim (shared) ownership of all their user content.
It depends on who took the picture and the site’s terms of use; there’s nothing especially free about official portraits.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

In continuation of your questions:

There is a Portuguese-language page about OTRS; it is less complete than the English one.
Creative Commons licenses at Flickr use the old version 2.0 Generic, which is less clear than version 4.0 International. See this page. Moreover, many or some of Flickr images are wrongly licensed because they are not users' own works, explained at COM:Flickr and COM:License laundering (português).
Well, one from Twitter, File:Chelsea Manning on 18 May 2017.jpg, is uploaded; authorization then was verified via OTRS.
Many on-duty US governmental portraits are in the public domain, like File:Bill Clinton.jpg, briefly explained at Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain (português, português do Brasil). On the other hand, many UK governmental images are subject to Crown copyright, yet File:Theresa May.png is released under a license freely allowing any use, providing that credit is made.

--George Ho (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Elder Scrolls maps

A user has uploaded some SVG maps of territories from the Elder Scrolls-Universe. Can this be a copyright issue? Robot Monk (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Theoretically yes. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

If they were copied from somewhere, or derivative of other maps, then yes. If they were the uploader's imagination based on written descriptions in the book, probably OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

They differ somewhat from everything I found on the internet, so its ok by me then. Robot Monk (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding few copyvio files

I added CSD tags to few files yesterday – [1], [2], [3], & [4] – but they are still there. It will be nice if an admin can have a look at these blatant copyvios. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Category cache problem? I can't find the files on the category page (Category:Copyright violations). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

They were there. I've just deleted them. Anna (Cookie) (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. BTW, I also couldn't locate them there yesterday. But I can see my today's CSDed files in that category. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Designs on clothing

What is the copyright position for designs on clothing? I happened to look at File:Paul Smith Jeans t-shirt.jpg: the T-shirt is obviously an everyday utilitarian item, but the coloured design by Paul Smith looks more like a creative work distinctive to the creator. I also looked at File:Paul Smith Stripes.jpg, uploaded as below the threshold of originality; however, Smith might not agree – much of his work consists of just this kind of thing, which is pretty clearly recognisable as his. Would we allow a Bridget Riley painting to be uploaded under the same exemption? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

fashion design is not copyrighted in the US, but it is a perennial dream - see also [5] and [6]. it would not do to be holier than the pope. when we reach the bridge then we can cross it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a complex matter and different countries have different rules. Some countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, exempt utilitarian objects from copyright, but there's no universal definition of 'utilitarian'. For example, Star Wars Stormtrooper helmets are utilitarian in the UK but not in the US. I think that there was a case where an ornamental textile was ruled to be utilitarian in South Korea although the same textile wasn't utilitarian in the US. Some countries, such as Sweden and France, do not exempt utilitarian objects from copyright protection at all, so courts sometimes rule that someone has infringed the copyright to furniture or clothes. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

In the US, illustrations on T-shirts are copyrightable; see https://www.ipmall.info/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2012/SteveSzczepanski120209.pdf where the Copyright Office originally registered a copyright in a T-shirt image (later retracted when the image part turned out to not be owned by the person trying to register a copyright). I think File:Paul Smith Jeans t-shirt.jpg is copyrighted in the US, but a bunch of lines of various colors (and the Copyright Office is firm about not registering things based on color variations) like File:Paul Smith Stripes.jpg strikes me as the type of thing that would not get registered.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this court document PD?

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2999596/Gov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0.pdf

It's linked in an article on Wikipedia. The photos in it are public domain, but is the text PD too? Because PD-USGov only covers works from the federal goverment I think. - Alexis Jazz 16:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say this is not PD because it is a document issued by Highsmith's lawyers in the first place and not by any federal US court. De728631 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's public record, but not public domain, I'm pretty sure. The rulings of that lawsuit -- where most of Highsmith's charges were thrown out -- would be public domain (PD-USGov and PD-EdictGov). The substantial one was here, where all of the main copyright arguments were thrown out, and some state misrepresentation charges were left in, which the parties settled on less than a month later. Not sure that the memorandum promised in that ruling was ever issued. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Threshold of originality for buildings in Italy

Closing Commons:Deletion requests/File:GranMadreDiDio-TA.jpg, @Ruthven: said, that Italian buildings not protected by the Ministry are considered below ToO. Most buildings are not protected by the Ministry and this makes me ask: is it true, that most buildings in Italy are considered below ToO? For example, {{NoFoP-Italy}} does not mention need to be protected by the Ministry. Taivo (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There is the Court decisions "Sentenze del Consiglio di Stato: Sez. VI, 26 July 2001, n.4122 and 15 April 2008, n.1749" that an architect even loses its rights (in particular, he cannot contest modifications to its work) and that the rights do no transmit ot the heirs, unless an "important artistic character" is recognized for the work/building. All other buildings are not protected in that sense. I started to write something in a subpage, User:Ruthven/Italian Copyright Law (still a draft), about these recent changes in Italy. The first section is about what we are talking about. --Ruthven (msg) 20:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

{{NoFoP-Italy}} doesn't mention the Ministry's page because Ruthven himself only happened to study this page, in its correlation with the other sources we have, very recently; we are currently working on a clearer definition of the whole subject. In the meanwhile, IRL we are setting up some contacts with the architects' representative organizations so to obtain from them a formal say of theirs confirming what we already know informally: architects (and other planners) are not interested at all into such a right the rule should grant them. (rather, they would be interested into making their plans better known, instead) This because we are working for a formal legislative clarification and we will underline that there are no interests protected by the rule, that - roughly said - only limits a personal freedom without concretely securing a personal right of anyone.

To put it simply, in Italy we don't have any other specification of what the general rule should protect: nothing else is said in any other act or rules or even guidelines, nothing else in anything of whatever legislative rank. The only thing we can find that talks about the architect's rights on the practical side, so that we can enforce and give application to the general rule (and protect the architects), is the list by the Ministry. We have been thoroughly investigating the matter for many years, now, and apart from that list, we simply can't find anything useful to grant the architects their due respect. Moreover, we cannot find any expected effect of this rule, very concretely starting from money: the national collecting society (Siae, of which I was an adviser last year) has never ever collected 1 single lira/euro for these rights, and I had to explain to many of them that such a limit exists... We know about one counted case in which some 10,000 euros were paid directly for the commercial use of the images of a well known architect's monumental bridges, and that's all.

Yes, we should perhaps go a bit faster in our work, that's true; we'll try to hurry up a little and come back on the subject soon :-) --g (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hrrrrrm. That seems to be referring to article 20 in the Italian copyright law, which is about moral rights, not the economic right. With moral rights, authors have a right to oppose modifications to their work. An explicit exception is carved out for architectural works though, allowing building owners to make modifications, unless it is registered as a building with an "important artistic character". That much is true. But that is explicitly restricting the moral right given earlier in the article, not the economic right defined elsewhere in the law. Architectural works are mentioned early in the law, so the use of "works" would apply to them. Article 18bis, the right of rental, is also mostly restricted for buildings. However, article 18, the right of translation, does not appear to be so restricted, and that would be where the derivative photographs would appear to be under the control of the author. The exclusive right of translation concerns all forms of modification, adaptation and transformation of a work as referred to in Article 4. Article 4 mentions works of a creative character derived from any such work, such as translations into another language, transformations into any other literary or artistic form, modifications and additions constituting a substantial remodelling of the original work, adaptations, arrangements, abridgements and variations which do not constitute an original work. Article 12 also says [The author] shall, in addition, have the exclusive right to the economic utilization of the work in any form or manner, whether original or derivative, within the limits fixed by this Law, and especially as regards the exercise of the exclusive rights indicated in the following Articles. If we can find some documentation or theory that the rights in Article 12 or 18 are restricted for buildings, that would make a difference. But to me, the links you have only restrict Article 20 rights. It's entirely possible that Italy has a higher threshold of originality for buildings, but I'm not sure that is the same level as the "important artistic character" -- rather, that seems to be the level where protection is so important that a building owner be restricted from modifying his own building. Is there other documentation which directly addresses the originality of a building? The list of limitations, starting with article 65, does not mention anything like a normal FoP clause. It is entirely possible that Italy has had no lawsuits on photos of buildings, as they are relatively rare. But the EU has had some, and Italy is subject the same norms. So the lack of a lawsuit may not mean the inexistence of the economic right. The threshold of originality could be one substantial difference between countries, but again not sure that was shown for buildings. Having to delete photos of buildings is definitely frustrating, so I'd love to find reasons to avoid it, but I'm not sure I see one in those links. I do see an article here which seems to believe these derivative rights exist. It does say that a 2014 decree may have allowed a type of "fair use" for such images though, which probably amounts to non-commercial FoP. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: The Franceschini decree walks on the path of the former "Decreto Urbani" (decreto legislativo 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42) and exists also thanks to us! Thanks to an agreement with Wikimedia (datails here), the fair use restriction works only for the economical exploitations in Italy of Italian monuments. For Commons' purpose, we can reproduce them, as we have an authorisation, and partially because the servers are in the US. We just have to add {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} in the file page.

Apparently, a photograph is a different medium than a building, thus reproducing the external aspects of it (NB: the blueprints are a different matter, and mentionned in another article of 1941 law) doesn't make prejudice to the economical value of it. Unless the photograph is taken from a place and with techniques that can endanger the building. This is the reason it is mentionned a "permission to photograph a private place": to be sure that the building is not endangered if a photo is taken from a private space. --Ruthven (msg) 06:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy image

Could courtesy image be uploaded to Commons? --B dash (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@B dash: Please be more specific. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 05:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: like this. --B dash (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The wording Photo courtesy of X usually means the publisher has permission (in effect a limited licence) from X to use the image. But if that’s what they’re trying to say, it‘s not very clear, and it doesn’t say courtesy of whom. OTOH it might just be the name of a stock agency or similar.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@B dash: In this specific case, no, the photo is from Charleston Co. Sheriff's Dept., you'd need OTRS permission from them. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 05:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. --B dash (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@B dash: You're welcome. I was only replying to you. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 06:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Momentum Movement.svg

Hi! We in Hungarian Wikipedia have a discussion about this image too: hu:Fájlvita:Momentum Mozgalom logó.png‎ (in Hungarian; I ping them @Hungarikusz Firkász, Bencemac, Sasuke88, Tgr, and Regasterios, and Oppashi). It was uploaded to Commons and than marked for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo of the Momentum Movement.svg. I contacted the deletion closing admin and Yann said this requires further discussion here, so:

In the Hungarian Law isn't, just something like the PD-textlogo. It says 1§ (3) The creation shall enjoy copyright protection based on its individual, original nature originating from the intellectual activity of the author. The protection shall not be subject to any quantitative, qualitative and aesthetic characteristics, or to value judgements relating to the standard of the creation. so this is more complex to establish the lawfulness/"threshold of originality" while the template say: This image only consists of simple geometric shapes or text.

Hungary
 OK
* stylized text with a common stylized globe icon SZJSZT 17/2012 (does not show the actual image)
 Not OK
* Sulinet Expressz logo, see SZJSZT 1/2005

I summarized the SZJSZT 17/2012 Hungarian text (see the link above) in English.

In the example of Commons:Threshold of originality#Hungary "OK" (SZJSZT-17/2012) the question was that the logo used (the logo text and image was not under copyright, because the stylized display of the business name and next to it a stylized globe, which can be found in technical books and on the Internet; it was a partial globe with latitudes and longitudes, and with a slightly tilted representation) is or does not have copyright protection, but not that the work derived therefrom. There namely it says that: "...the acting council states that the original just typographical solution logo it sight which consisted solely of the company name, has changed with the globe supplement. The sketch of a globe and the compiling the two elements shows clearly graphic design skills." - the copyright issue was not extended for this work, so about the final creation it isn't a legal resolution and we do not even know how these logos looks at all (despite that of the subject of the decisionis there is a good description - see italics).

The Hungarian OTRS have a legal resolution from Momentum, that there is an existence of copyright (ticket number: 2018021510007142) and a former permission for just for Wikipedia illustration (not the same but similar to fair use).

BUT User:Oppashi is in progress (in Hungary, there are elections, so we have to be patient with the answer) for a cc-by because there is a trademark protection too. If he did not succeed what is expected from what is described, can the image be deleted from Commons? (Sorry for my bad English language knowledge!) Fauvirt (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The larger issue is that {{Textlogo}} is based on US copyright law but regularly applied to logos from non-US jurisdictions. And while every copyright regime has some kind of threshold of originality concept that applies to very simple logos, the bar might be much lower than in the US. --Tgr (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Help for Usage of the Youtube - CC LICENCE - Screen capture

Dear Expert users,

Would you please advise me whether I can use the screen capture of the CC(Creative Commons) Licence of the YOUTUBE video below? - example: Upload the screen captures to the Wikimedia Commons. Kim Jong Un's visit to China (English) (North Korean TV)

Goodtiming8871 (talk)

Where do you see CC there? The description says it’s under the “Standard Youtube Licence”, which is not free.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Even if there had been a CC license, this seems to be a TV broadcast. You would need permission from Kim for that, but given the quality they may have gotten their footage elsewhere. So just no. Screencaps from genuine YouTube-CC videos (like this) are typically acceptable, this isn't. - Alexis Jazz 19:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your confirmation of usage of screen cap - I will try to find the Youtube licence with "Creative Commons" Goodtiming8871 (talk)

Would you please advise me whether it is a "Creative Commons" licence? I searched file with the filter of "Creative Commons" --> [7] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: Just read the description: "License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)". However, this channel seems to share clips from others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKoWgMAESUY for example is extremely obviously from CBS and they slapped a CC license on it. So again, no. - Alexis Jazz 15:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: , Dear Alexis Zazz, Thank you for your kind update. Wow...that is surprising thing. I would like to find the CC license Photo about the meeting between Xi Jingping and Kim jung-un, Is there any where, I might be able to find? Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: A photo like File:Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un hold talks in Beijing.jpg you mean? - Alexis Jazz 07:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I appreciate your kind response. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Goodtiming8871: it is possible the kind of photo you are looking for is not available with a free license. On Wikipedia it can possibly be uploaded as fair use. Some sites may seem to offer what you are looking for, but the license is not always right. Also see COM:License laundering. - Alexis Jazz 01:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Thank you for your kind response. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Kathleen Wynne

This image of Wynne does not seem to have proper licensing information: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kathleen_Wynne,_MPP_for_Don_Valley_West_and_Premier_of_Ontario.jpg

Should it be marked as possible copyvio? Looks like it is from https://ontarioliberal.ca/css/images/wynne_official.jpg

Image is re-used on http://www.canadianinquirer.net/2018/02/03/wynne-to-deliver-keynote-address-at-pre-election-liberal-gathering/ and http://torontopubliclibrary.typepad.com/local-history-genealogy/2018/03/23-firsts-for-women-in-ontarios-history.html with links to Commons as the source. // sikander { talk } 13:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Found the full image on http://www.kathleenwynne.onmpp.ca/Biography?l=EN and this is a copyvio. Marking as such. // sikander { talk } 13:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

W. & D. Downey - Licence header to delete or change

On this photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Millicent_Fawcett2.jpg I added the living dates of the photographers. Youngest is dead since 1915. So can change the licence header? I have no idea where/who the right address is. Is there a button or Link? Maybe this ist the correct side? Thanks for answer. --Tozina (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You can add {{PD-old-100}} template to it. Ruslik (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's a corporate credit, technically it's anonymous, and {{PD-UK-unknown}} would also apply. Later on, one of the sons ran the company (though even he died in 1908). But PD-old is also fine to add. I added the creator tag of the firm. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Can an image that is ineligible for copyright be changed to that template?

Found this image: File:Black.png that clearly is too generic to be eligible for copyright and makes sense to be in public domain. Can I change it if I am not the uploader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicdragon136 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Anybody can do this: I added a {{PD-ineligible}} tag. Ruslik (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I would just add the ineligible tag, and leave any free licenses. Copyright laws in this area vary greatly by country, and it's near impossible to be sure that something is ineligible in every country in the world. If there is even one country where a file is above the threshold, then the existing free license is useful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

True. In the UK for example very simple forms can already be copyrightable. Even if an image was created by (for example) someone in the US, someone from the UK will need the Creative Commons license to use it. In the case of Black.png though it seems safe to say that this is ineligible in every country in the world. - Alexis Jazz 19:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Everipedia using multimedia content from this project - redux

Evripedia's use of open-licensed "by" images, without attribution, has been discussed here previously.

There's a thread about this on Twitter, starting with my post at:

https://twitter.com/pigsonthewing/status/982917458326622208

Sam Kazemian of Everipedia has replied, here:

https://twitter.com/samkazemian/status/983597269290139648

with set of proposals for future action. He offers no explanation, much less an apology, for taking images without credit, in breach of the CC by-sa licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

COM:Everipedia should answer any question you have about this. - Alexis Jazz 16:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Pictures from The Huntington Flickr account

Hi. I've checked several pictures Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) upload from The Huntington Flickr account. It seems that every playwright picture does not belong to this theater company (some are already on Commons). I've not enough time to check them all so I notify Village pump. Kind regards, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: I don't see the problem. You say the pictures do not belong to this company, but who do you believe they belong to? I don't find the pictures anywhere else. (granted I only checked 3) - Alexis Jazz 10:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Have you seen Ser Amantio di Nicolao talk page ? Ten have already been deleted and 16 others will be soon. The reason for deletion is mentionned on each one. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: can you update Commons:Questionable Flickr images and User:FlickreviewR/bad-authors? ID 59832923@N02. (is that list still being used? since FlickreviewR is blocked?)

- Alexis Jazz 13:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Yes, it it is still used by the new flickr reviewer bot and maybe some other tools (upwiz) as well. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Patrick Rogel: in reply to [9] ("his strange comment from this morning in which he "doesn't see the problem" with files uploaded by Ser Amantio di Nicolao from The Huntington Flickr account, although 10 had been deleted, and @EugeneZelenko: had put a warning on 16 others at the time.") and the above "Have you seen Ser Amantio di Nicolao talk page ?".

I hadn't looked at the talk page of this user. I checked their uploads, did reverse image search on a few but that turned up dry, looked at the Flickr account which seemed legit at first glance.. So I didn't see the problem. When you clarified the issue, I did some things.

Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedinsource:huntingtontheatreco has been created. - Alexis Jazz 21:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen that. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Help please: image of Lauritz Sand, 1945

I would like to add this image to the Wikipedia article of the same name but have forgotten how. Could a maven please help? Thank you! Shir-El too (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

If you mean File:Ukas_bilde-Photo_of_the_week_09-2012_(6791346900).jpg, you should add [[File:Ukas_bilde-Photo_of_the_week_09-2012_(6791346900).jpg|thumb|Caption]] to the article. Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Interpretation of Template:PD-PRC-exempt.

Dear experienced Wikimedia users,

Regarding Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2010) ^[1] and Commons:Copyright rules by People's Republic of China. ^[2]
Would you please let me know your opinion whether the photo of the news is the part of news on current affairs?
Concerning the summary definition of News on Wikipedia "News is information about current events.
News is provided through many different media" (examples: printing, broadcasting; public Television or Public Radio, or electronic communication ) From my understanding of the definition of News, photo and text of the news should be also the part of the News. In the current multi-media era, it is logical that News includes not only text, but also Picture and Video files.
From the Template:PD-PRC-exempt, Defines news on current affairs as the mere facts or happenings reported by the mass media, such as newspapers, periodicals and radio and television stations.
As I understand Copyright Law in China, (Unlike the US, where copyright is so crucial), China might not be so strict about copyright, especially News, because it reports facts about the current affairs, so it does not apply to copyright.

Article 5 This Law shall not be applicable to:

The Copyright Law of China: Article 5 This Law shall not be applicable to:
(1) laws, regulations, resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature; and their official translations;
(2) news on current affairs;
(3) calendars, numerical tables, forms of general use and formulas. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The language "mere facts or happenings" indicates contents with no originality, whereas photographs are clearly works of originality and creativity, which are more than "mere facts or happenings" and thus not exempt from copyright. --Wcam (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to the actual court cases in China: "On the Meaning of "Current Affairs News" in "The Copyright Law".link here)

From my understanding, we should abide by the result of the current judicial practice in Chinese court as it would be the future reference of the other similar Copyright cases in China.
In summary,
1) If the photo is the actual fact of the News or enhancing the effectiveness of news, it is not protected by copyright law; no one has the right Claim copyright. Examples of cases) a photo of the "36th World Journal Conference", The photos of “Fan Bingbing Wedding Photographs News"
2) IF photos do not convey current events or the relevant facts are necessary, the photo is protected by copyright law, The photos of "Chen Guanxi arrived in Beijing Photographs News".
Regarding the the Copyright court cases above, I believe that the photos of "conference, meeting, congress, assembly, gathering, summit, or wedding News" is not protected by copyright law, as per the judicial practice in the Chinese court. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a spillover of my request to delete a photo depicting Xi Jinping met with Kim Jong-un, took by a reporter of Xinhua News Agency. I made my point clear there: in short, I agree with Wcam while opposing the thread starter. Reasons:

Press photos don't constitute "mere reports of facts" as in the Chinese copyright laws or essential to convey the news on current affairs, thus eligible for copyright protection in China.
The Article 67 of the Chinese constitution stated that rights to interpret Chinese laws belong to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, not Wikipedia or you. The NPCSC has made it clear that:
News on current affairs, as a fact, is not subjected to copyright protection. Yet works derived from news on current affairs (like short press releases and press photos that is hard for ordinary people to take technically) are eligible for copyright protection, as they met the criteria to constitute subject of copyright protection. Creators of works derived from news on current affairs own the rights to attribute, modify, publish and monetize the work.
Court cases that the thread starter cited are distorted - i) in the Edison Chen case the court decided that the photo in question reached the threshold of originality and is eligible for copyright protection, ii) other cases mentioned contradict the case aforementioned, and the legal opinion stated in these decisions are disagreed by some (incl. the author of the opinion essay cited above).
Photos on assemblies (in China) are copyrighted. Previous cases in Wikimedia Commons are unfavourable to the thread starter's claim (see there).
U.S. copyright laws are applicable in this case even when Chinese copyright laws are not applicable unless the Xinhua reporter relinquish his copyright claims in the U.S. Press photos are usually copyrighted and unacceptable in Wikimedia Commons since most Wikimedia servers are based in the U.S.--Spring Roll Conan ( Talk · Contributions ) 10:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Images from India 1943

I'm having difficulty working out the status of images taken in India during the Bengal famine of 1943.

Commons:International copyright quick reference guide says "India has 50 pd for photos published before 1941, was PD on 1996 URAA date", but it doesn't explain why 1941. {{PD-India}} is unclear, but it does say "Photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation."

We're currently claiming fair use for File:Statesman j.jpg (author is The Statesman newspaper), but another image from the same famine, File:Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943.jpg (author unknown, but possibly also The Statesman), is on Commons with {{PD-India}} and {{PD-India-URAA}}.

Can anyone advise? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

India had a term of 50 years from creation for photographs. Their 1958 law changed that to 50 years from publication, but only for photos created from then on -- existing photos kept their old term based on creation. In 1991, India passed another law extending their general term to 60 years, so the intent was to increase the term of non-expired photos to 60 years from publication. Thus the 1941 line -- a photo created in 1941 or later had its term extended to 60 pd. A 1943 photo would expire in India 60 years after publication, however, that would have been after the URAA date meaning the U.S. copyright would most likely be restored. There is some argument that mistakes in the 1991 law left the original 50 year from creation term unchanged (in which case your photo would have expired before the URAA), but the clear intent of the legislators was to extend all existing copyright at the time. I don't think there has been a court case which ruled on the matter.

So, the statement "India has 50 pd for photos published before 1941" is close -- it was 50 pr (years from creation), not publication, and those photos would be PD in India and the US. The statement of "Photographs created before 1958 are in the public domain 50 years after creation" would be either ignoring the 1991 law, or taking the position that the 1991 law did not change the old terms (which would have defeated the main purpose of the law, which was to extend copyright for a famous poet who died in 1941). I don't think there is consensus here to assume that, though any photo published before 1958 would still be PD in India anyways. Per the intent of the 1991 law, the 1943 photo would have been extended, and then become PD in India in 2004. So, PD-India is still correct for that photo. The US side of things though is not so sure. If the photo was published in the U.S. within 30 days, that would have avoided the URAA and it would be PD, but otherwise its U.S. copyright would exist until 2039. There is a bit more discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory#India. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Carl, thank you very much for this information. If I've understood correctly, you're saying that the PD status of File:Statesman j.jpg and File:Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943.jpg depends on whether they were published in the United States within 30 days. If so, what are we expected to do to determine that? We know that some of the images taken by The Statesman were published outside India, because secondary sources refer to their publication, but The Statesman published a large number of them, and we don't know which ones were published elsewhere or when. The only reference I can find to publication in the US is a secondary sources saying the images were circulated within the State Department in Washington. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, that is the hard part, determining that. If we find a newspaper or magazine with the photo within 30 days, that would do it (access to newspaper archives helps there). If the Statesman was documented to place all their photos on an international wire, or a general agreement with U.S. newspapers or the AP or something like that, that could get fuzzy as well. Otherwise it is hard to prove. There is some resistance to deleting URAA-restored photos here sometimes, so they won't always be nominated (or deleted if they are), especially when there are uncertainties in the foreign law (or 30-days status). There is the {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} tag which can at least serve as a warning for U.S. users. A lot of times, the historical changes in a country's law were not always fully documented, so when the URAA ruling first came down there was a massive deletion request which would have covered a lot of images which were actually OK, so that was dropped in favor of individual DRs. Since then, there has not been much organized effort to purge such photos, though it does happen. I personally don't upload images which I think were restored by the URAA, but I'm sure we have a boatload. The Commons image you link above may be one of them, though if someone with access to say newspapers.com wants to search August and September 1943 issues to see what photos they may have, that could provide documentation to clear up the status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

FAL 1.1. and FAL 1.2 not compatible with CC BY-SA

I received an email from Creative Commons saying that {{FAL-1.1}} and {{FAL-1.2}} are currently incompatible with any version of CC BY-SA, yet RP88 said in last month's discussion that any version of FAL allows a licensee to comply with one of later versions, like {{FAL-1.3}}. --George Ho (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you confusing terms? Both "Only FAL-1.3 is compatible with CC BY SA 4.0" and "any version of FAL allows a licensee to comply with one of later versions" are true statements. All three existing versions of the FAL licenses contain the option to comply with the provisions of one of the subsequent versions and only FAL-1.3 is compatible with CC-BY-SA 4.0. When someone adapts a CC-BY-SA 4.0 work and applies the FAL to their contributions they can only choose FAL 1.3; FAL 1.1 or 1.2 can not be chosen as these licenses are not compatible with CC-BY-SA 4.0. —RP88 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a little chart as an example to show the licenses that can be chosen for a modification to an original work licensed under a couple of licenses (this chart applies to adaptations, not unmodified distributions):

Original license	Possible licenses for an adaptation
CC-BY-SA 4.0	CC-BY-SA 4.0, FAL 1.3
FAL 1.1	FAL 1.1, FAL 1.2, FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
FAL 1.2	FAL 1.2, FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
FAL 1.3	FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0

—RP88 (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... not according to email from ArtLibre.org saying that, if FAL is un-versioned, an FAL-licensed work can be adaptable. Otherwise, implicitly, if versioned, that depends. If version is either 1.1 or 1.2, then the works with specific versions would not be adapted into CC BY-SA works.

In other words, based on emails received from ArtLibre and Creative Commons, the table would go like this:

Original license	Possible licenses for an adaptation
CC-BY-SA 4.0	CC-BY-SA 4.0, FAL 1.3
FAL 1.1-only	FAL 1.1
FAL 1.2-only	FAL 1.2
FAL 1.3-only	FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
FAL 1.1 or later	FAL 1.1, FAL 1.2, FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
FAL 1.2 or later	FAL 1.2, FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
FAL 1.3 or later	FAL 1.3, CC-BY-SA 4.0
FAL (unversioned)	FAL 1.x, CC-BY-SA 4.0

If you still believe I'm wrong, you can contact ArtLibre.org and then Creative Commons for questions and comments. George Ho (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

But if forwarding their emails to the Legal team is necessary, then I guess I must do so. --George Ho (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

ArLibre published the "FAL 1.1", "FAL 1.2", and "FAL 1.3" licenses. As far as I know ArtLibre has not published any licenses identified by the names of "FAL 1.1-only", "FAL 1.2-only", and "FAL 1.3-only". If you know of links to those licenses, I would appreciate it. For example, is "FAL 1.1-only" some sort of custom FAL 1.1 license with section 6 removed? With regards to versioning of FAL licenses, while both CC-BY-SA 2.0+ and the FAL provide an option to comply with later license versions, they differ in a significant detail. CC-BY-SA gives licensees the option to comply with a later version only when applied to an adaptation of the work. Unlike CC-BY-SA, the FAL gives licensees the option to comply with a later version of the FAL whether or not the work has been adapted. So, for example, if artist Alice creates a work “Artwork 1” and communicates it to artist Bob with the FAL 1.1 license, Bob may, under the terms of Section 6 of FAL 1.1, choose to use “Artwork 1” under the provisions of FAL 1.3. Now that Bob has elected to use “Artwork 1” under FAL 1.3, Bob can create a derivative work of “Artwork 1” (let’s call the derivative “Artwork 2”). Under the terms of section 2.3 of FAL 1.3 this derivative can be distributed under a compatible license. Since CC-BY-SA 4.0 meets the requirements of section 5 of FAL 1.3 (and CC extends reciprocity to FAL 1.3), it is compatible with FAL 1.3, so, Bob can distribute “Artwork 2” with the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. —RP88 (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I understand this, -only in this context means that a work was published under FAL 1.x as the only license without the option of any later FAL versions and without parallel licensing under Creative Commons. De728631 (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

PD-US-unpublished confusion

Compare {{PD-US-unpublished}} to {{PD-old-auto-unpublished}}. PD-US-unpublished requires only one of the three conditions to be met. PD-old-auto-unpublished requires the author to have died before 1948 and for the work to have never been published before 2003.

? - Alexis Jazz 01:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

PD-US-unpublished says "This work was never published prior to January 1, 2003, and is currently in the public domain in the United States because it meets one of the following conditions: its author died before 1948; ..." I don't see the contradiction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The contradiction is that, apart from the publication date, the author having died before 1948 is the only and mandatory condition at {{PD-old-auto-unpublished}} while PD-US-unpublished requires one out of three possible conditions. De728631 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, I overlooked that. (and I made some mistakes in that case) They still differ though as pointed out by De728631. These templates should look the same. So does {{PD-old-auto-1923}} also apply when a work wasn't published in the U.S. before 1923 but only in the home country? - Alexis Jazz 02:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't look the same. A template that requires the deathyear cannot and should not look like one that include anonymous works.

Yes, PD-old-auto-1923 applies when a work was published before 1923 anywhere.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Okay, but they should look the same in terms of the layout. I made a suggestion at User:Alexis Jazz/sandbox. What do you think? - Alexis Jazz 04:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. PD-old-auto-unpublished is not a US-specific template, it should not have a "PD-US" prefix. Like PD-old-auto-1923 and PD-old-auto-1996, it is a combination tag for an arbitrary country of origin combined with a common US PD reason. I think the formatting of those seems fairly consistent (see {{PD-old-X-1923}} and {{PD-old-X-1996}}). The unpublished situation means though that the US term will likely match the country of origin term (if at least 70pma), so the terms are no longer completely separate like the other two tags. I don't see any problem the way they are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: So you disagree with the way it is now? Template:PD-old-auto-unpublished/core embeds {{PD-US-unpublished-text}}. - Alexis Jazz 18:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the templates are fine (and completely accurate) as-is. I think I was more referring to the proposed name on your sandbox page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: please tell me which name I proposed. I'm not aware of proposing any new names. - Alexis Jazz 01:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, maybe I misunderstood. But I still don't see the problem you're trying to fix. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Clindberg: I initially completely missed the 2003 date requirement on {{PD-US-unpublished}} because the order of the sentence is not logical. I have further clarified my suggestion and moved it to User:Alexis Jazz/PD-US-unpublished suggestion. Its largely housekeeping really. The current licenses are legally not a problem, I'm just trying to make them easier to read. - Alexis Jazz 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

One is a US-only template, which combines the 2003 unpublished requirement with the ways that unpublished works become PD in the US. The other one is a combined US and PD-old-70 tag, based on an author's known death year, where only one of the three unpublished conditions from the other tag makes sense. Otherwise they are the same. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

As for the publication question, in general if something was published anywhere in the world, it was considered published in the US. There could be edge cases on the technicalities of what constitutes publication I suppose, where it would meet one country's definition but not the US (or vice versa), but for the most part a work is first published just once, and that is it. The tag is mainly for situations where something was long unpublished anywhere, and expired due to PD-old-70 in its country of origin and via the unpublished limits in the US (which is the only situation where the 70pma term is relevant today, expiration-wise, in the US). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

This picture of a pamphlet seems to be a blatant copyvio. Am I missing something? 91.10.18.81 14:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong there. Did you read the licence template? It says that "... it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice". The pamphlet is from the 1950s (see description) and there is no copyright sign or notice, so it was never eligible for copyright. De728631 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I should add, that in the US copyright was not granted automatically until 1989. You had to fulfill some formal requirements such as attaching a copyright notice to make your work copyrighted. See also COM:Hirtle chart. De728631 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It isn't clear from that image if it is a complete representation of the pamphlet. There could be a copyright cropped out of the image, or the copyright could appear on another page if there is more to this tan just what is shown. The line around the image indicates to me that the source of this was likely a book and not a copy of the pamphlet itself. It is not safe to assume from this that it is not copyrighted. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right that it was a booklet of sorts, namely a pamphlet of six pages . It was apparently written by Myron C. Fagan and first published in 1959 (see No. 24), but even if there was a copyright, it wasn't renewed in the 1980s [10]. {{PD-US-not renewed}} De728631 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, De728631. That clears up any concerns I had. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

en:Maymie de Mena

I am wondering if Mayme de Mena’s photo could not be transferred to commons. How one does that I have no clue, but, the photo is labeled 1925 visa photo, thus it falls within the dates of 1923-1978, i.e. {{PD-US-no notice}} – published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1978 but without copyright notice. It is highly unlikely, as a visa photo that a copyright existed, and it would have been invalid as an id after 5-10 years anyway. Surely posting an image on a passport is “publishing” it? (And the author is unknown) The image is 93 years old and she died 65 years ago. I am unsure of what her citizenship was at the time of her death, probably British, but at the time the photo was taken, she was Nicaraguan by marriage. SusunW (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Several problems: 1) copyright attaches upon creation ("It is highly unlikely, as a visa photo that a copyright existed" is entirely incorrect); 2) publication has a technical meaning in copyright law ("the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending"); mere appearance of an image in a passport is not publication; 3) even if this were published, {{PD-US-no notice}} applies only to works first published in the US (it is unclear whether this is from a US, British or Nicaraguan passport); 4) in the US (works on the Commons must be free in both the US and country of origin, if different, so US law serves as a first "hurdle"), unpublished works with known authors have a term of life of the author + 70 years (the age of the subject is not relevant) and unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works have a term of 120 years from date of creation (or 1.1.2046 in this case); 5) that this is embossed may mean the photographer of the passport photo (i.e., the creator of the derivative) may also have a copyright which would need to be considered. This currently could not be transferred to the Commons. Эlcobbola _talk 18:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I am baffled by all the technicalities, so always prefer to ask first. SusunW (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:WhatsApp screenshot rus.png

Recently, when I was surfing the files, I found File:WhatsApp screenshot rus.png, which was a Russian version of WhatsApp. I suspected the file is a fair use screenshot, but as the uploader has some seemingly OK reasons about that, I didn't use a speedy delete. After that, he give me some explanations, but looks like only effective on Russian Wikipedia. Could anyone who know well in copyright determine the situation?
The uploader's explanation:

The interface of this program consists exclusively of well-known elements and does not contain original author's work. According to the decisions of the courts for Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation and Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., protected are only those elements of the program interface that contain the original author's work. Their mutual location, the scheme of construction and operation of copyright are not protected. In Russian Wikipedia, where I work, there is even a template named "trivial screenshot".

DR discussion page
Thanks!

廣九直通車 (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Are these photos "taken as part of that person's official duties"?

Camp Kaiser, Korea 1966-1970: http://brucerichards.com/army/ckaiser6a.htm.

Are these {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}? There are some pretty nice photos there, like http://brucerichards.com/army/k016.jpg and http://brucerichards.com/army/k031.jpg. (somebody had seen Dr. Strangelove ) - Alexis Jazz 18:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

On tour, so no time there was time off. --Fæ (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that's the rule. The question is, is it part of their official duties? If it's their own camera, their job title wasn't "photographer" or "journalist" or anything, and they kept the originals, I'd say it's almost certainly not PD-USGov. I've uploaded a couple of my father's Vietnam photos, and I'm completely under the impression that they are in fact still copyright by his heirs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, would have to agree. If their job title was photographer, or even if they were just asked by their bosses to take pictures a particular day, that would be part of their duties and a USGov work. Photos they take with their own cameras of their own volition would be theirs, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The opposite applies. On active duty on foreign soil in the 1960s, you would need permission to take photos. Unless released, all photographs would be subject to official government control or necessary censorship. The alternative would be chaotic, and put missions and military personnel at risk. --Fæ (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Even if you would need permission to take photos, it wouldn't make the photos part of your official duties. My father never mentioned needing to get permission, and I've never heard of it elsewhere. In theory, the photographs would have subject to necessary censorship. I suspect my father's photos were merely raw film until he got back to the States; trying to censor photographs by returning vets or completely stop them from using cameras was probably considered unhelpful to morale and pointless to security. In the case of Korea, the Status of Forces Agreement talks about dependents, which means it wasn't considered a war zone duty. Once you've got the point of bringing in cars (also mentioned) and families, do you really think they could have banned cameras?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Censorship would not affect copyright ownership. They may not have the right to publish, for a time, for reasons other than copyright. Once the period for censorship is over, just the copyright would be left. Much like if you take a photograph which violates privacy -- you still own the copyright to that photo, but other laws would prevent publication. But if you can create a derivative work which does not violate privacy, that would be OK, and still under the copyright owner's control. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I'll have to ask the photographers if they want to release the photos. And as the photographers (or not all of them) have control over that website I guess it will have to go through OTRS. - Alexis Jazz 22:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Publish date issues

I knew there was a problem with this, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Commons:Help desk#old pictures made me look at it again and I think I see a problem now.

Some old pictures are found at http://tnsos.org/tsla/imagesearch/index.php?resultpage=2&find=elliston. For example http://tnsos.org/tsla/imagesearch/images/30145.jpg made around the 1840s. For the sake of argument don't dig up facts about this particular picture and call it "solved" because my issue applies to millions of pictures. So we start looking at Commons:Hirtle chart.

If such a picture was published before 1923 or a bit later without notice/renewal it's PD. Now assume we know absolutely nothing about the author and are unable to find proof of any publication before 1964. The author may be anonymous, or not, we don't know when they died. We don't have the resources or ability to find out. If it was first published in 1978 or later it would be PD anyway: the author is guaranteed to have been dead for 70 years and 120 years from creation have passed. So it doesn't matter if they are anonymous or not. If it was published 1923 through 1963 (published with notice and the copyright was renewed) we have to follow COM:RENEWAL. There are things that would be more fun to do, like taking out the garbage, but it's doable.

The problem is 1964 through 1977. (published with notice) The copyright of those works will expire 95 years from publication and this could include the 1840s image we started with. We can never prove it wasn't first published in this period. So we must assume that, possibly, it was. Putting the work into copyright until at least 2060. Any work for which there is no proof it was published before 1964 or proof that it couldn't have been published before 1977 would have to be assumed to still be possibly copyrighted and should therefore not be allowed on Commons. This also means that for many old works a lot more research is required to assert its copyright status.

This is clearly insane, but I've just lost this argument with myself. Please tell me I missed something. - Alexis Jazz 23:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a few of technical issues; first, publication without permission doesn't count. Publishers that copied old enough images without permission didn't legally publish those images. (Technically, I think the only copy of an image ending up in an archive without publication is evidence the common law copyright had expired, since there was no federal statutory copyright on unpublished/unregistered works until 1978. But common law copyright is hairy.) Oh, look, we found this in an archive is not a legal first publication unless they contacted the copyright holder for permission to use it.

Secondly, works first legally published after 1977 and before 2002 by authors who died before 1977 are under copyright until 2048.

I also find falsifiability an inappropriate tool here; the philosophers have shredded cogito ergo sum, leaving us with basically nothing we can prove. When a photograph is from, where it was taken, when it was first published, that it is a photograph, none of that is ever "provable". We're always going on reasonable.

Yes, if you think there's a possibility that a work was first legally published 1923-2002 with any needed copyright formalities, you need to do a number of checks in the US, and if you don't know anything about the history of the work, that can make it nigh impossible. What about it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I had misread the Hirtle chart, you are right, for 1978-2002 the earliest is 2048. So anything legally published in 1964 through 1977 with notice or 1978 through 2002. You are right some publications are not legal, I had touched that subject in COM:WORSTCASE, but that only helps to prove a specific publication is legally not a publication. But the problem is what we don't know. The author or their heir may have published a work somewhere in that 1964-2002 period. Maybe they gave permission to a local magazine to print it. Maybe they were interviewed on a TV show and they would show the work. Maybe they held a small-scale exhibition. We just don't know. Over a 38-year period that's not unreasonable to think and we could realistically never find out. Per COM:PRP we shouldn't upload them, effectively extending the copyright term for obscure works to infinity.

It now means I will no longer upload files that I used to upload. I would like it if the policy made a clear statement on this. Either the policy could say "PRP does not apply, we assume nothing was first published in that period unless proven otherwise" and/or we say "You have to look in places X, Y and Z. If you don't find it there, you can assume it was not published in that period". Or we pick a date: "everything before 18xx is assumed to be out of copyright". When I uploaded File:Carlsberg brewery fire 1867.png I assumed it would be either PD-unpublished or PD-1923 as its from 1867. Now I'm thinking it's certainly not impossible that it would have been first published in 1964 through 2002. So now I should nominate it for deletion? - Alexis Jazz 04:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, For old images (prior 1898), we should use {{PD-US-unpublished}} unless we know they were published. So all the cases you mention here should be fine. Paintings should be regarded as published. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This would be fine with me (and also seems to be the common practice around here), but could this please be reflected in policy? - Alexis Jazz 16:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If it seems reasonable to assume such files were published back in the day, I don't see a problem with it. If a copy ever ended up in someone else's hands other than the original author or his heirs, there is a good chance it was published. If there is documentation that a work remained in the author's family for decades, or that it was originally stolen or something, that would raise some significant questions and it would probably be best to assume it was not published until at least then. Outside of those though, COM:PRP is for significant doubts, not extreme theoretical doubts that rely on exquisite timing of publication (or similar actions) without any information to back up that belief. We upload lots of photos under a claim of "self taken" without any proof whatsoever that claim is accurate; like anything else we then delete if information contrary to that initial assumption comes to light. So I don't see much issue in assuming that very old works were published in their time, at absent any information to indicate otherwise. If something that old wasn't legally published before 1964 it probably wasn't legally published before 2003 either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Nakula Samanta Sinhara Logo 01.jpg

Not sure what to make of this file. It looks like it's something the uploader (or somebody) created using multiple images, so it might be a COM:DW. However, there's nothing about the copyright status of each of the individual elements. There's also a copyright notice/watermark at the bottom right of the image. The same image seems to have also been uploaded as File:IPiccy-Design.jpg and possibly also as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nakula Samanta Sinhara 1.png. Can Commons keep this as licensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Done Both deleted, as poor quality logos copied from the Internet. Yann (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for checking on these Yann. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

US license needed

File:City Theater of Tehran - 1971.jpg needs a US license but I'm not sure which one. - Alexis Jazz 04:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Iran has no copyright relations with the U.S. so there is no US copyright on it. It will presumably be PD-1996 when/if Iran joins the Berne Convention (as their URAA date will be in the future), provided that Iran does not retroactively restore copyrights before they do so. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The correct template, Alexis Jazz, would be {{Copyright notes|Iran}} --Majora (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Martin bareš-masaryk university campus.jpg & File:Petr Pleva – Správní rada Masarykovy univerzity má nového předsedu.jpg

Can someone who can read Czech determine if these images are free? I do not see a license for it at the source but I don't read the language. If it is not free, feel free to launch a Deletion Request. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: you don't need to read Czech to see license (clickable) → more info. Sealle (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank You Sealle. I did not see the license. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Old Public Records - Plat images

(Question previously misplaced on w:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.)

I am checking whether public records filed with county government are public domain and free to upload to Commons, especially those filed before 1923. My specific item is a 1907 town plat hosted by City of Hays/Ellis County Geospatial Data Portal:

Plan of Yocemento, Mill and Grounds. See w:Yocemento, Kansas (Vacated town relevant to the geologic history of western Kansas).

Some content of the item is public record statements from 1997.

I have received an email from Eamonn Coveney, GIS Specialist with City of Hays / Ellis County stating "I have verified that all of the materials on the hosting website are public domain, and do not claim any rights."

Am I good upload?

Does it impact the question if I redact the 1997 content?

What Copyright tag should I use in generally from this source? Not all of the public content is pre-1923. IveGoneAway (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

en:File:Manhattan Regional Airport logo.png

I'd like to think that this is too simple to be copyrighted in the US, so we can upload it here as {{PD-textlogo}}. Does anyone disagree? De728631 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be although it is a borderline case, in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Dominican Republic copyright

We don't appear to have any copyright templates for the Dominican Republic, such as {{PD-Dominican Republic}}. It could be based on this WIPO document where most copyright is for 50 years pma or 50 years after publication for anon works. Several older stamps have been uploaded and the uploaded has claimed a Creative Commons license and I was trying apply an accurate template for the slavish copies that these images are. Can someone please create this for us? Then ping me and Jacquesverlaeken please. Ww2censor (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)You

You can create it yourself based on any county specific pd template. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ruslik0: Because I have never made any templates and to avoid errors, I would prefer if someone more expert, with experience, would create it. Ww2censor (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the standard {{PD-old-50}} won't do? —LX (talk, contribs) 14:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ww2censor and Jacquesverlaeken: I have had an initial go at creating a {{PD-Dominican Republic}} template. It would be very much appreciated if others would check the template and its contents for validity and correctness. At the WIPO site, there is a PDF document which is a "Courtesy translation" of the copyright law in question and this translation is labled as "© 2012", presumably with regard to the WIPO. The template incorporates information about copyright durations from this document. From what I can tell, the URAA date for the Dominican Republic is January 1, 1996. Assuming that is accurate, there may be an issue if the Dominican Republic had different copyright terms in 1996 or before that year. In addition, where copyright durations are concerned, it appears that the copyright law in the Dominican Republic treats the public display of a photograph as being the same as publication of the photograph, which may well be different from US copyright law. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gazebo for your work on this. I can't tell anything more than the WIPO documents state but maybe someone else can review it for us. And LX, you may well be right that {{PD-old-50}} would be ok but Gazebo makes some points that may not be covered by that template requiring a custom one. That's why I sought some better advise. Ww2censor (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

en:File:Newfocus.jpg

I think this may have incorrect licensing information. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.232.213 (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for telling us. I have tagged File:Newfocus.jpg as a copyvio. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Cmccarthy8

I found a pic of a supercomputer and wanted to know if I can use it. I dont know how to contact the guy who made it but it was in the commons. I wanted to use it for a logo on my store page. The users name is Cmccarthy8. What do you think? is that copywrite infringement? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 45.42.30.208 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That user’s photos, including File:Quad-NVIDIA-Tesla-K40-GPU-Accelerator-Personal-Supercomputer.png are all under a licence that requires attribution, meaning it has to be accompanied by a credit including a link to the licence. That would make it unsuitable for a logo, which is typically used in all kinds of situations where a credit is impractical. You could try asking for permission; the user was only briefly active three years ago, so posting on the user-talk page might not get a response, unless e-mail notifications were set. But perhaps you could try making contact through the company those contributions were apparently made to promote.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Hand drawing dollar image.jpg

Recently when I was surfing the files, I found File:Hand drawing dollar image.jpg, a hand drawing US$100 banknote. I suspect the file may violate the conditions from COM:CUR, but cannot determine if the file is a lawful colour illustration. Can anyone who know well in such cases help to determine this?

KTT廣九直通車 (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@廣九直通車: it’s certainly a derivative of the banknote design, but the original is presumably PD as a work of the US government. As for the non-copyright restrictions on currency, I don’t think those are a problem here because it’s a monochrome drawing, while AFAICT the anti-counterfeiting measures refer only to colour illustrations or reproductions.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

MSNBC

What are other people's thoughts in what appears to be a mistake in licensing on MSNBC's YouTube channel? Specifically, videos like File:How will Rick Gates' Guilty Plea Impact Paul Manafort- - Velshi & Ruhle - MSNBC.webm. Looking into the archive it does appear that the video was listed as Creative Commons when it was originally uploaded but has since been changed back to the Standard YouTube license. All of their videos are now the standard YouTube license and I'm going to assume here that the creative commons listing was done by accident. There is some precedent where mistaken releases like this were deleted, specifically in cases of individuals not understanding what a CC license means, and from what I can tell there are only 11 files that would be affected. But I wanted to get some other takes on it before I did anything with them. --Majora (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

On first thoughts I would say that since licensing something as CC on YouTube requires one to change from standard to the CC-license, it is an active choice regardless of their knowledge what that means. Most Wiki*edia newbies don't know either when they upload/write something. However, in most cases, the person uploading a video to YouTube does not own that company's copyright and does in most cases not hold the rights to license away those rights. But, since it is their official YouTube-page, it is as if the company itself licensed them. Not an answer, just reflections. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Right. And for the most part we take official youtube account uploads as a sign off from the company itself. The switch back to the standard license seems to indicate that the company didn't know what the uploader was doing though. The archive only has one version of the example file I mentioned above so I'm unable to tell when the license was switched back but it lasted for at least a few days as CC (based on the Commons upload and assuming it was correct at the time) and was changed back when I looked at it today to do the license review. The question is, since it was originally uploaded as CC do we take that as a company sign off? Even if it was switched back? --Majora (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

CC licenses are irrevocable. And if they would upload CC videos and not change them back we would certainly accept it. Maybe they released videos as CC for a legitimate reason (like allowing users to share them across social media or use them in compilations) but the decision was reversed when upper management heard about it. When tradebots wasted millions of dollars on Wall Street due to a bug, those transactions were not undone. Legally I doubt we would have to remove them. But like Josve05a: not an answer, just reflections. - Alexis Jazz 22:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that CC licenses are irrevocable. This isn't my first rodeo. But they are only irrevocable if they were properly done in the first place. Playing both sides here, from the evidence it would seem that the idea that they weren't done correctly originally is a plausible explanation. --Majora (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

we routinely keep flickr images where the license is changed. why should this be different? is MSNBC a super-user where their wishes trump the express language of the license? maybe you should email them, so you can elicit a sternly worded lawyer letter, and then nominate "because OTRS"? 98.169.251.154 16:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If a file was only briefly tagged with a free license on Flickr, and given a lot of people's inexperience in copyright matters we do sometimes decide that the original license was a mistake and not the actual intention, so if fixed quickly we will accordingly delete under the presumption it was never really offered under that license. For a work where it was licensed freely, and the author later changed their mind, correct, that does not invalidate the license. Unsure in this case how long the videos were marked as CC-BY on the MSNBC site, and whether it was a short-term experiment (i.e. intentional) or a staffer mistake. And even if it was a mistake, it could still potentially be legally licensed, especially given that a content creator like MSNBC should not have any confusion about what a copyright license like that really means. More of a gut feel and consensus situation, it seems to me. Could see it going either way -- could be reasonable to assume a mistake, or go with the posted license and revisit if MSNBC complains or offers any clarifying information. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree: There's a difference in how we handle cases where the rights holder appears to have consciously released works under a free license first, and later changed their mind, and cases where it appears that a release under a free license was never intended and it was a mistake (by creators, or, in the case of large companies, maybe by some "social media" employee without actual authorization to release content under a free license). In the case discussed here, I think I share Majora's assessment. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't say we should absolutely keep it. Even if they released it consciously and changed their mind we can decide to be nice towards them and remove it if they want that. And because such material is "tainted" (no matter if it was released consciously or not), it may not be fully safe for re-use so that could be sufficient reason to take it down. But should we? I'm not sure. - Alexis Jazz 22:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment File:How will Rick Gates' Guilty Plea Impact Paul Manafort- - Velshi & Ruhle - MSNBC.webm is from 23 February 2018. https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/12/11/voters-left-dark-alabamas-election-system/ is from December 11, 2017 and refers to What Do The Roy Moore Allegations Say About GOP? | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC. Al Sharpton On MLK: He Had A Vision Beyond His Time | Hardball | MSNBC is CC-BY right now. (somebody import it!

) This is no temporary experiment. And you really can't say they don't know what they are dealing with: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50261013/ns/business-small_business/t/use-photos-advertisements-take-these-steps-avoid-lawsuit/. - Alexis Jazz 22:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

yeah, let's all get the Ouija board out and read the minds at CNBC - they did not really mean to use an irrevocable license: they meant to use PDM. the genuflecting before corporations is instructive, it's as if you work for authors guild. too bad you cannot extend the same courtesy toward the Prado.[11] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

btw, here is the list filtered by cc license, they have uploaded video with a cc as recently as 3 days ago, not a one off "mistake". https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=EgIwAQ%253D%253D&search_query=msnbc - Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Kesha-pitbull-timber-amas-2013-performance-video-04.jpg

This file first raised some doubts in me due to the JustJared watermark, since material from that website usually is copyrighted. After passing it through Google Images, I found it on Getty Images with a license that does not seem to correspond to the one it was uploaded it with here. The uploader already had one of their files removed for copyright violation in the past, as can be seen on the discussion page. Besides, nothing seems to indicate that Kolombiyar is Kevin Winter (the copyright holder according to Getty Images), which would violate Getty Images' policy against false claims of ownership of their material (see 3.f.). What should be done with this file? Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 15:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for voicing your concerns. This was an obvious copyright infringement so I deleted the file. De728631 (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your quick help! Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 09:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Principia_Discordia_Evangelical.jpg

So apparently, the portion of the media page reading "I, the copyright holder, publish this work" is just for show, and I have to ask this place for permission to upload my own work. I dunno what the hell the problem is, and I feel SUPER frakkin' harassed right now. Please to remove this nonsense request. Page at issue: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Principia_Discordia_Evangelical.jpg Reverend Jesus "H." Christ (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

ReverendJesus: The nominator is right. For every work already published elsewhere, a formal written permission is required. Please see COM:OTRS for the instructions how to send it. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This is fucking ridiculous. Reverend Jesus "H." Christ (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

ReverendJesus: This is in place for more than 10 years. Please watch your language. Yann (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Recently, I found File:Principia Discordia Evangelical.jpg, a book cover of Principia Discordia. After I have tagged it as a fair use, the uploader challenged me, claiming that he is the author of this book cover (more information at here). Some arguments have been made, and he also said that the file is published in a kopyleft license (I think it is from "The resized version of the PD, optimized for distribution."). I am quite confused about the complexity of this case. Perhaps it is better to start a more open discussion in here.

Source page: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/athiestchaplain
Deletion request page

廣九直通車 (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Was the uploaded file the same resolution as the image at the given source, or bigger? If bigger, that was not the source, though obviously anyone could scan a cover of the book themselves without owning any copyright. In general, yes, images that are first published elsewhere (without a free license at the source) need COM:OTRS verification of the license. Users here are anonymous, and it's too easy to make claims over existing work (and/or make usernames to match). Additionally, many people think "own work" means that they did the work of uploading, rather than being the artist. Book covers are a pretty common thing to have to delete in this way. On the other hand, there is apparently a tradition with versions of that particular book to place them in the public domain -- it's likely that book is in fact distributed that way. See w:All rights reversed -- the original pun on the copyright notice really meant there was no copyright notice, so the book became public domain. If the artwork on the current-day cover is original however, and is not explicitly placed in the public domain by the book itself, then it would have its own copyright which would need to be licensed. The same copyright notice pun nowadays does not have the same effect, and so the artwork would still be fully copyrighted, though there could be an implied license. There are some editions where publishers added content so that they could claim copyright... this does not seem to be one of them though. There is a video review of it here where it says the content is basically all the original text, but the cover and back cover is original. If the uploader here is the same who made that Lulu edition available, they may well have drawn the cover themselves, which would make any license valid. It would be good to know of the particular history of the drawing, and if the uploader does indeed claim they actually drew it. Given the particular history of this book, I would probably lean

Support. Often though, people not caring about copyright or putting silly copyright notices on stuff can easily run afoul of what is considered "free" (even if accidental). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

File:John mayer.JPG

Nothing seems to indicate that this file isn't the work of its uploader, but it seems to be based on copyrighted work. It's very similar to this logo, which can be found on Alamy. It also uses a portion of a photograph taken by Annie Leibovitz for a GAP ad, which is likely to be copyrighted as well. Thus, I'm wondering if the licence is appropriate, or if the file even belongs here at all. I'd appreciate advice if possible. Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 15:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This image is a obvious copyright violation. Ruslik (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleted Yann (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to the both of you for your help! Bizarre Bizarre^{Talk modern to me} 16:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bizarre Bizarre: Although this probably was a copyvio indeed, you should take a look at COM:ALAMY. - Alexis Jazz 02:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

[1] ttps://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_(2010)

[2] ttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#China

[1]

[2]