Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/12

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 taken by anonymous people 65-75 years ago

There's an article about American composer and painter Emanuel Leplin. It has no photo. I have good photos taken 76 and 66 years ago. The 76s years old photos were taken in Europe during WWII by an unknown person. The photos 66 years ago were taken on a mountain climbing trip by an unknown person. Can I insert one or more of these photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rleplin (talk • contribs)

Your photos need to satisfy both local and US copyright laws. If we assume that the photos were published shortly after they were taken, but the copyright was not registered in the US, or notice was allowed to lapse, both will be eligible under US rules. The "local" rules depend on the coutrny wjere they were taken. In the United Kingdom, Switzerland and France the 76-years old photo is OK, but not the 66-year old photo. I have not checked any other countries. I suggest that you visit Commons:Copyright rules by territory for more info. Martinvl (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Rleplin: Didn't we just delete a bunch of photos Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Rleplin that had problems? Please refer to those discussions because help was offered. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

FILE-DESCRIPTION EDIT

Though - as seen below - I've been advised to "edit the file description" . . .

"Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted"

How should the below detail/background details be incorporated? . . .

Fall 1983, New York, NY. In-studio photo-shoot by David Fullard of Leni Wylliams performing ORBWEB choreographed by Eleo Pomare

Leni Wyllliams dancing his signature solo SWEET IN THE MORNING during the May 1994 spring concert of Wylliams/Henry Danse Theatre at White Recital Hall of the Performing Arts Center at the University of Missouri-Kansas City / photographed by the-late Marbeth Schare

Or are they even sufficient and/or what's required?

I do have permission from both photographer David Fullard and Wylliams/Henry-Artistic-Director Mary Pat Henry to post their respective photos on the WIKIPEDIA page of LENI WYLLIAMS. Both photos have already appeared on the FACEBOOK page of LENI WYLLIAMS.

THANKS!

 - Paynethymaya

Greetings Paynethymaya: This regards four photos

Of which none seem to be your "own work" even though that is how you uploaded them. The last one showing the depicted person's growth in three life stages looks as if it may even have three photographers. To be retained on this project - COM:OTRS permission needs to be obtained for each image's photographer. If there are three on a page, there needs to be three permissions. COM:EVID requires the uploader to provide proper license, which means you get to ask David Fullard and Mary Pat Henry to fill in the appropriate tiny little form at COM:OTRS for their images, and get the same from the three photographers of the other image! Best wishes, Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC) P.S. if you sign four tildes ~~~~ after you type something, the system will autodate and provide clickable link to your pages. Which is a huge help in a project as big as this one!

Copyright violation

Hello, I tagged this photo as a copyright violation. The uploader removed the copyright violation notice, and uploaded a different photo. Any help would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: The newly uploaded photo appears to be taken from the duo's Facebook/Instagram feed: see https://www.facebook.com/weswervin/photos/a.134427067972773/138622637553216. I cannot yet comment on the validity of the uploader's claim to copyright, but in cases where only previous images are unambiguous copyright violations, they can be deleted from the upload history by using {{Speedydelete}}, with details on which version(s) should be deleted and why. This is a standard way to delete leftover copyrighted material following cropping, for instance. --Animalparty (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Animalparty: The image I tagged was this one, which is their album cover. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Personality rights of photos taken within Japan.

COM:AN#Combining multiple DRs into a single one seems to be more of a personality rights issue than a copyright issue, but it would be interesting to here what some others have to say on it because it does involve a fair number of files which have been nominated for deletion by their uploader. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The link for the mass DR is Commons:Deletion requests/Shogi Proffesionals. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Carrie Brownstein and Corin Tucker in 2019.jpg

I'm wondering if this file's licensing should be verified by OTRS. The file's description and EXIF data states that the file was taken at the beginning of July 2019, but it wasn't actually uploaded until mid-September. That's probably not a big deal except that the file seems to have been used online here and here at the end of July 2019, here and here at the beginning of August 2019, and here in mid-August 2019. There other examples of the photo being used online prior to its upload to Commons as well. All of these uses do, however, are after the date the photo was supposed to have been taken and it does have the look of a publicity photo that the band might have released to promote their music. The question is whether it should be assumed that also is the case with the photo being uploaded to Commons. One of the websites I linked to above attributes the photo to a "Nikko LaMere", but there's no way to know whether that's the uploader. Another photo of the band uploaded by the same user can be found File:S-K 2019.jpg and its description and EXIF data says it was taken on the same day as the other one; it was also uploaded on the same day as the other one. This photo can be seen here in Rolling Stone in August 2019 and is also attributed to "Nikko LaMere". Maybe this one also should be verified by OTRS? -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree both File:Carrie Brownstein and Corin Tucker in 2019.jpg and File:S-K 2019.jpg, the sole uploads of Ikeadams12345 (talk · contribs), are suspicious enough to be skeptical : I think you should contact Nikko LaMere directly and confirm if they are licensed appropriately. It would be best to have him directly submit permission to OTRS. --Animalparty (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at these. I think that tagging them with {{Npd}} and notifying the uploader about the tags should be just as sufficient as trying to directly contact the photographer, shouldn't it? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I think direct outreach is more effective, but aside from that a standard deletion nomination may be more called for. In general I consider {{No permission since}} as more passive aggressive, and more appropriate when uploaders fail to provide any evidence of permission: it implies the uploader is not the copyright owner (which may or may not be true) and ignores all "proof" of permission present: taken at face value, {{Own}} is assertion of ownership, and applying {{Self}} is a assertion of ownership and permission. In cases when the uploader is the true copyright holder but happens to be away from Commons for a week, then we risk alienating novice users and deleting good content. --Animalparty (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You make a good point about nsd templates. I'm reluctant, however, to directly contact someone out of the blue and basically say is this user you and did you upload these files. Everything would be fine if the answer was "yes" to both those questions, but if by chance the answers turn out to be "no" then the conversation might become awkward. I also don't want to make a new email address just to contact someone. Maybe your suggestion of a DR is more doable for me. Of course, you or another editor can try emailing LaMere if you want. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Panoramio

I would like to invite comment about the status of Panoramio photos in this discussion: [1].--Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Cosplay photos

I came across File:Yukitora Keiji as Marie Rose 20161227.jpg, File:DVD4436.jpg and File:Yukitora Keiji as Marie Rose 20160605.jpg being used in some articles about en:Putri Nony Lovyta. I don't think there's any issue with the actual licensing of the photos themselves, but I'm not so sure about the character imagery per COM:COSPLAY. She does seem to be dressing up as actual characters from video games which would most likely mean that the character imagery itself is protected by copyright, but there is clarification made at the end of the COSPLAY section about general images of the character as opposed to individual elements of the character's costume. Maybe all that is needed here is to add {{Costume}} to the each file's page? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Difference between Copyrightholder and author

I currently added {{Author missing}}, which is a more harmless edit than adding {{No permission since}}, to File:Wikimedia Foundation logo - vertical black (2012-2016).svg because the Author was declared as "Wikimedia Foundation", also it is a derivative of File:Wikimedia.png, created by meta:User:Neolux, which was converted by User:DarkEvil to SVG . However User:Jdforrester (WMF) reverted my edit with the Edit-comment/Summary "this is not missing author information". I know it is a {{PD-ineligible}}-image (at least according to File:Wikimedia-logo_black.svg and File:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg) also it was tagged as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, and therfore "everyone" could claim it as his/her own.

Is it correct that the author-field in {{Information}} should only contain humans/persons, and not the copyrightholder/rights owner?

— Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 20:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's PD-ineligible, there is no author. But anyways, yes the "Author" field can contain corporate owners, or other copyright owners. That information is usually very important. Or owner and author, if both are known and different -- provide as much information as we can. But not supplied does not necessary mean "missing". If a company owns the copyright, they may choose not to disclose the human author -- that is different than missing, which implies the uploader made a mistake or is something to be fixed. For the U.S., a "work for hire" doesn't really matter who the human author is (though it can in other countries). I would not bother with that template if the corporate owner is known, or even the author is simply unknown. If nothing else, use the {{Unknown}} template. The "author missing" template is added automatically if no author text is there at all (i.e. not even "unknown"); it gets things added to maintenance categories that admins need to deal with -- it's just causing needless work for others. I would simply have Wikimedia Foundation as the main owner though mention User:Neolux as the creator. For something PD-ineligible, there is no "human author" really in a copyright sense, though it's always good to give credit. The trademark owner would be the most relevant information for re-use, in this case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Clindberg: User:Jdforrester (WMF) declared it as CC-BY-SA-3.0, therefore he has to name the ~~authors~~(changed to copyright owner), or change the license to PD (I did both).

Even if it doesn't matter that PersonXY is the author, PersonXY is the author. Therefore it is possible to use e.g. {{CC-BY-SA-3.0|Wikimedia Foundation}} or {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} to specify who to attribute (if differently than the author).

To the best of my knowledge Category:Media_lacking_author_information is a category nobody cares of, if there is no source it's different.

— Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 22:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This says an OTRS ticket has been sent, but I can't find it. @Jdforrester (WMF): can you provide a ticket number? GMG ^talk 23:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: You find id=2014070110006444 in the sourccode or on File:Wikimedia_Foundation_logo_-_vertical_(2012-2016).svg, maybe you should remove the template completely. — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 23:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh. I see. It's quite an old ticket. At any rate, I don't think it's worth fretting about, not in any meaningful way that affects the copyright status of the work. GMG ^talk 00:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

If the file is CC licensable (i.e. not PD), it's the copyright owner who decides what the credit says -- does not necessarily have to name the human authors. Likely not copyrightable in the U.S. UK, possibly, so the CC license (if declared) can still be helpful. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Because I was imprecise: The copyright owner can say who to attribute, but it does not need to declare the author, then the author is IMHO unknown.

@Clindberg: The problem I had with the file, is that "Wikimedia Foundation" is IMHO not a valid source, without OTRS-ticket. (missing author is the only template that does not lead to deleting request or to an increased admin-workload. (Also this discussion does)

@GreenMeansGo: As an admin I should know how to handle it correctly, and knowing how to use the author-field is something I should be quite clear of. But this is not a very good example, therefore I suggest to close this request.

— Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 08:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 08:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a perfectly valid source/author as far as I'm concerned. Not sure what the problem is, for a WMF account uploading a WMF logo. No OTRS needed there. In this case it would be good to credit the original designer, but in general, in the U.S. corporations can basically be authors due to work for hire. In some other countries, the human author being known can change the length of the copyright term even though the company owns the copyright, but not the U.S. If a corporate author is named without a human author being named, then yes the work would be "unknown" or "anonymous" for copyright term computations. But the corporate name should still be present. "Author missing" is not for this situation; it is for when no text has been entered at all. It implies that something should be added; if we just know the corporate name then that is what should be there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Changes to Help:Public domain

It appeared that the page Help:Public domain had been last edited in 2017, so I have made some changes that should hopefully be useful. In particular, the page now uses {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}} instead of 1923 to indicate the cutoff year for US copyright. Another change was updating a link and license information for Peter Hirtle's copyright chart and subsequently providing what should be hopefully improved attribution for the chart.

In the page subsection Unpublished works, there is a statement that refers to works that were published after 2003 and which were created before 1935. Although Peter Hirtle's chart has some references to the year 2002, it is not clear where the year 1935 came from. In addition, the Help:Public domain page, like Peter Hirtle's chart, appears to observe the Twin Books v. Walt Disney Co. 9th Circuit court decision for certain works that were first published outside the US on or after July 1, 1909. (Among other places, the {{PD-US-expired}} template does not mention the Twin Books decision, though it is mentioned in the English Wikipedia in the template PD-US-expired-abroad.) It would seem useful to consider how the Twin Books decision affects Commons. --Gazebo (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I have similarly edited the more up-to-date page Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, particularly with regard to references to the year 1923 and the {{PD-1923}} template. There is also a category page, Category:Paul Klee, which has references to 1922 and 1923 as cutoff years for US copyright; however, I have not edited that page as of this writing. --Gazebo (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Stade Roumdé Adjia 17082019.jpg

According to c:COM:FOP Cameroon, there's no freedom of panorama in Cameroon for architecture permanently installed in public places. I assuming that means "buildings" like a soccer stadium so I'm not sure Commons can keep this file as licensed. One thing i'm not sure about though is whether this would be applicable to building's under construction photographed before they're completed like is the case with respect to this photo. Currently, the English Wikipedia article about the stadium is using a non-free file for primary identification purposes. English Wikipedia does allow non-free images of architectural works under construction (e.g. an artist's rendition) to be used, but only until the structure has reached a stage of construction which allow a free equivalent image to be taken which basically can fulfill the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free one. Moreover, even though there doesn't appear to be any FOP for buildings in Cameroon, or at least only a limited version of FOP, there is in the US per c:COM:FOP United States. English Wikipedia has a license en:Template:FoP-USonly which allows such images to be treated as a sort of "local PD" for use on English Wikipedia. So, that might be a possibility here if Commons cannot keep this file. The question then is whether it would be OK to "move" the file from Commons to English Wikipedia; I know it can be done from English Wikipedia to Commons, but I don't whether it can be done from Commons to Wikipedia. One thing about this file though is that even though it's not being currently used anywhere on English Wikipedia, it's being used on some other language Wikipedia's and I've got no idea if those projects could accept this file as a local file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I would imagine any move would be by hand. Don't move that one though -- appears to be a straight-up copyvio. That image can be found at https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=2117318 , and larger versions exist on Twitter per a Google Images search. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Clindberg for that information. Perhaps this is one which should go to DR then, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It was clearly a copyvio, so I tagged it as such and it's now deleted. A shame, because I thought it might help with the en.wiki conundrum when I initially found it - I should have checked the provenance myself. I almost wish I hadn't stumbled across it there now, because 4 other wikis now have "holes" in their articles... -- Begoon 09:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The deletion of the Commons file was unfortunate but also necessary and unavoidable. I guess it's back to figuring out the local file on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help reuploading some images?

Hi,

I uploaded this File:Acrania-Fearless Album Cover.jpg and this File:Carátula para el álbum An Uncertain Collision de la banda Acrania.jpg and this File:AcraniaBanda2019.jpg and they are scheduled for deletion. The thing is that I am the drummer of the band and I have the rights to use said images, I was certain that I had provided the right info for them not to be delete and now I don't know how to edit the files permissions or how to get them back online. Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenshademx (talk • contribs) 21:09, 12 December 2019‎ (UTC)

Hi Ravenshademx. For File:AcraniaBanda2019.jpg, the thing is that each file uploaded to Commons needs a suitable license, so that everyone can use it properly. The "no license" tag (~ deletion request) can be removed once you've added a license to the file. You may use one of Commons' copyright tags, preferably a Creative Commons license. Also, please consider that the photographer/creator holds the copyright for each file. Did you take the photo yourself, or was it somebody else? Ahmad^talk 21:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

image rotation

Hello, I would like to flip the image of William Walcutt's painting: Pulling Down the Statue of of George III, which is owned by Lafayette College. The statue needs to come down toward the right side of the painting. Please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.147.54.220 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 13 December 2019 UTC (UTC)

@139.147.54.220: are you referring to this image? It has extremely poor sourcing (Facebook is no better than "I found this on the internet"), but is reversed compared to the image at galleries.lafayette.edu (presumably more authoritative). However the "incorrect" orientation appears to be widely reproduced online and even in print, incorrect or not. One orientation is thus "flopped". It also appears that File:William Walcutt statue George III.png may itself be a modification or adaption of the image at Lafayette: aside from the reversed orientation, the raised arm of King George is missing, and the hair of the man holding the hammer is brown, while it's white in the Lafayette version. I think a high quality copy of the "original" image should be found and uploaded as well, with explanatory text explaining the differences. --Animalparty (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Comersa-Videosport-4000.jpg

Hi, I have found this image on commons: file:Comersa-Videosport-4000.jpg added by the user "Museo Del Videojuego". It came from here. I do not think it can be accepted....

Thank you, --Arosio Stefano (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Done file tagged as no permission.--BevinKacon (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

image use

hello, and excuse my weak English

I want to upload this image here to use it in this article and it is from a paper licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 and I'm double checking that it's OK to use it, with attribution of course. --Momas (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Momas, unfortunately, we cannot accept that file, as Commons does not allow NC (non-commercial) or ND (non-derivative) files. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Momas: if the image is based on known information or data, not proprietary information or research, then you could ask the Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop if someone would create a freely licensed new image based on the data. Ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Belgian government in 1944, London

What do yo think about this photo (direct link)? If it is already PD? --Regasterios (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

From my understanding, it is in the public domain in the UK (where it was taken, London), because we don't know who the author is (at least I don't), and such works are in the PD after 70 years from create/publish date. However, I'm not sure if it's in the PD in the US as well. That said, the source website has a list of sources used in the website, so the author might not be unknown.

On a side note, I could find w:hu:Fájl:Pierlot govt london.JPG under CC-BY-SA 2.5. Ahmad^talk 20:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am from Hungary, I know this file. Eleven years ago Dirk van Hoef who works this webpage allowed a user (Viktorhauk) to upload this photo to Hungarian Wikipedia. The question is it PD or not. CC license is not valid IMHO. A private person works this webpage. His collection is nice, however I think he is not the copyright holder of the all photos. --Regasterios (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the same way. They are not the copyright holder, therefore they can't release it under a CC (or any other) license. Ahmad^talk 15:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Back to the real question here: if I may upload this file to Commons? Although probably it is not PD in the US but see COM:DIU. --Regasterios (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure. The thing is that I'm not sure if it's PD in the UK either. I mean, maybe the photographer is known (mentioned in the original source). If you can contact this website's administrator, maybe asking them would be a good idea. Ahmad^talk 20:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. --Regasterios (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

PD-FLGOV and law enforcement booking photos

Since the scope of Template:PD-FLGov seems to extend to content created at the county level, I'm wondering if that would mean that booking photos (i.e. mug shots) taken by law enforcement representatives as part of their official duties would be considered to be PD. I'm asking about this because of en:File:Jennifer Mee Mug Shot 2010.jpg uploaded as non-free content, but which is attributed to the Pinellas Country Jail. If such a photo is covered by "PD-FLGov", then the file's licensed can be changed accordingly and the file can be tagged for a move to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Such photos are PD. Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Ruslik. I will pass this bit of information along to the file's uploader. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

satellite shot

Can you please help me? Not sure if I can upload a satellite shot on the Commons. The specific shot that I want to upload is satellite shot of hairpin turns on the road Cetinje-Njeguši-Kotor in Montenegro, and I found it on this page. Thank you. --BuhaM (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

BuhaM, unless you can identify which satellite took the image in question, we cannot assume that the image available under a free license compatible with Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Huntster, I take a detail from a screenshot on https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/, coordinates 42° 25' 45" N, 018° 46' 39" E, or 42.4294, 18.7783. As I understand, materials from this site is generally in the public domain. Can I upload it to the Commons?--BuhaM (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

BuhaM, here's the problem: the base map at Earth Explorer is provided by the commercial entity Maxar through another company ESRI, which creates mapping layers. Specifically, the images you see date from a satellite pass on 2 April 2018. So no, that imagery is not public domain either. *If* you can find a data set from NASA or other U.S. government agency on EarthExplorer worth using, then those would be public domain, but in my casual browsing I've not found anything that would come close to matching the same resolution. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Huntster, I see... Well, thanks anyway... Maybe something comes up someday.

--BuhaM (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Kent Tate at lava flows.jpg

Is assuming good faith with respect to this photo's licensing appropriate or would it be better to request OTRS verification? The file doesn't appear to be being used anywhere online except on websites which seem highly likely to be Wikipedia mirrors; so, it's first publication does seem to be Commons. The uploader, however, seems to be claiming that they are the same person being photographed and the file is claimed to be "own work". It could be such with the photograph being sort of a selfie taken with a tripod setup, etc.; it could also just as easily be a photo taken by someone else. My question is whether this latter possibility is something to be concerned about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It does not look like a selfie. Ruslik (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Personally no I don't think we should care that much about the latter possibility -- either he had someone take the photo using his camera, or it was a family member. Either way he could still quite easily have legitimate rights to post the license. If we are pretty sure it wasn't just copied from an unlicensed source, I prefer to just assume good faith on those -- no more likely to be a problem then usual own work uploads. The same situation (taken by a friend or family member) could be true for any of those uploads, too; I think it just makes Commons seem like we are looking for reasons to delete rather than something which is a real problem. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Julia Morgan and Hearst Castle

I'm currently working on an expansion of the Hearst Castle article, with a view to FAC. I should very much like to include a picture of the castle's architect, Julia Morgan. The castle is her most important building and it would be a great pity, and detrimental to readers, if we were unable to include a single image of her. I have previously tried to use [[File:Julia Morgan.jpg]] but this has been removed on the grounds that Fair Use only allows for the image to be utilised in the article specifically on Morgan. I have sought the views of editors experienced in copyright issues regarding images and it has been suggested that either Template:PD-US-no notice or Template:PD-US-not renewed would be appropriate as the image was a carte de visite created in 1926 by a now-defunct agency. I should add that other editors disagree with this interpretation. This file is the only image Commons has of Morgan, the only other having recently been deleted on copyright grounds. I absolutely accept that copyright rules are not my forte but I do have some experience in contributing to FAs. The Hearst Castle article attracts a pretty high level of interest and it would be a poor service to Miss Morgan, a neglected architect in her lifetime and after, and I would suggest a detriment to our readers, if we weren't able to have one picture of her within it. KJP1 (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

What image of Julia Morgan are you talking about? Ruslik (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: The file being referenced is en:File:Julia Morgan.jpg and the relevant discussion is at en:File talk:Julia Morgan.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The user said that there is an image on Commons. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that was just a unintentional mixing up of Wikipedia and Commons. The user wanted to use a non-free photo in an article that wouldn't really be allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and in the course of inquiring about that, the possibility of the file being actually "PD-US-no-notice" came up. Since there was some disagreement over this (ping Magog the Ogre), I suggested that it might be helpful if KJP1 asked about this here at VPC. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

My apologies and thanks for clarifying. That is indeed the image I meant. As an aside, which may have no relevance to Commons rules at all, the photo is reproduced without any attribution on page 197 of Morgan's most recent biography, Julia Morgan - Architect of Beauty, Mark Anthony Wilson, Gibbs Smith, 2012.KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. This wanders squarely into the question of what exactly constitutes "publication" in that era and for this situation, which is insanely messy. First, that era had the doctrine of "limited publication" versus "general publication", and it was only the latter which required a notice (and lost copyright without it). Secondly, it was unclear whether the copyright of commissioned works stayed with the author or belonged to the commissioning party -- cases went both ways, I think. Since 1978, that latter question is clear -- it stays with the author barring a contract (so the photographer owns the copyright of your wedding photos, unless the contract specifies otherwise).

One definition of limited publication is 1) distribution to a limited number of people for 2) a limited purpose, and 3) no permission for further distribution, where all three conditions had to be met to avoid general publication. While a photographer giving copies to the purchaser would be to limited people, that type of thing was rarely for a limited purpose, and indeed it seems it was used as a carte de visite, which implies further distribution. Some circuits use other definitions of "limited publication" though, where it may not be as clear. Since the photographer got payment for it, I tend to think that constituted publication, especially using the first definition. If on the other hand copyright stays with the commissioning party (as used to be more common in copyright laws), then it was the common-law copyright (which is what existed before "general publication") being sold basically, meaning it would still be "unpublished" until the purchaser did something with it. If kept private, then it could have remained unpublished all this time. The collection was donated in 1980, but it may still be unbpublished. If it was unpublished as of 2003, then copyright lasts 120 years after creation. (The photos is credited to Boyé Studio, San Francisco, so it sounds like a corporate work.) But... if Julia Morgan distributed it herself, the same "limited publication" question comes up again. The source is listed as a "carte de visite", which were typically handed out to friends, or as business cards. That again sort of implies general publication, to me. If the photo was published in a book without mentioning a source, that could indicate the author did not feel they needed to get permission from anyone. Given that the source is a carte de visite, meaning many copies were probably made and given out, I would guess it was published at the time, and therefore PD-US-no-notice pretty much immediately. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and taking the time to try and help figure this out. Are you suggesting then that this image would be OK on Commons? If it would be, then there's no need for it to remain a local file on English Wikipedia and it could be re-licensed moved to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Clindberg, Marchjuly - Carl, yes, thanks indeed for the very helpful explanation. Can I take it from this, as Marchjuly suggests, that PD-US-no-notice would work? That would be in line with the views of two other editors experienced in copyright. I'm looking to take Hearst Castle to FAC in the near future, and it really would enhance the article to have an image of Morgan, the castle being by far her most important work. Thanks again for the advice. Marchjuly - if this is the case, would you be really kind and undertake the relabeling and the move to Commons? If I try it, I'm bound to mess it up! KJP1 (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly - So where do we go from here? I think Carl's advice is actually pretty clear - "PD-US-no-notice pretty much immediately". This accords with similar advice from Nikkimaria and Ww2censor. Can we go ahead and relabel? KJP1 (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one who really was objecting to doing such a thing, but perhaps Magog the Ogre might still have some concerns. Given what has been posted above, you can probably change the licensing and move the files to Commons since there's no reason to keep it local on Wikipedia if it's not non-free. Whether it ends up in a COM:DR is hard to say, but at least you'll have this discussion to point to as "proof" that there had been previous discussion on this and the opinions of multiple editors was that the file is most likely PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Q

Are the following files free enough for commons? Seems to be lower than the TOO of UK.

--Minorax (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Minorax: ~~yes, both these files qualify for {{PD-Textlogo}} and can be migrated to Commons.~~ --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, after a second look at COM:TOO United Kingdom, this does appear to be copyrightable in the UK. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: It's just plain text and a simple geometric shape (rect + triangle), so maybe it's scratching the surface of the TOO? Minorax (talk)

@Minorax: Better to be safe and keep it local. The only other wiki that has an article on the company is Scottish. So I don't see a major need to migrate to Commons. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for your time :) Minorax (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Yusof Ishak.png

Aren't wax figurines generally considered 3D works of art? en:Yusof Ishak is a former en:President of Singapore and according to COM:FOP Singapore there is FoP for 3D works of art. The Wikipedia article states that the work is displayed at en:Madame Tussauds Singapore, but even so I'm not sure that still doesn't mean that a license is needed for the figurine in addition to the one provided for the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this case is covered by COM:FOP Singapore. No additional license is needed. Ruslik (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this Ruslik. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Aeroflot banner infront of ManUtd stadium.jpg

There's no FoP for 2D graphic works in the UK per c:COM:FOP United Kingdom and I don't think COM:DM can be claimed here since the focus does seem to be this banner and not any of the surrounding stadium superstructure. The question though is whether this would be considered a graphic work since it does seem to be a more of a "poster" than a "work of artistic craftsmanship" that is granted FoP in the UK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I think portraits are almost always considered "graphic works". The photos of people is a dead give away that this is not going fly for COM:FOP UK. The portraits are also definitely not de minimis. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Coffeeandcrumbs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Xercise4Less_Logo.png

Company's Logo, can't seem to find any evidence that this is licensed under the stated license. -- Doublah (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Doublah: Because of COM:TOO United Kingdom, this should theoretically be moved to Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia has no article about this company and it is TOOSOON for this startup to qualify for a Wikipedia page. I think this file should be deleted because of DEL-REASON # 12. Unused files are not eligible at en.wiki. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Just going to add that there are two possibilities with respect to this when it comes to (English) Wikipedia: en:Template:Non-free logo and en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly. In the first case, the file is licensed as non-free which means that it will need to be used in at least one article per Wikipedia non-free content criteria #7; so, if you cannot add it to an article, it will end up deleted per speedy deletion criteria F5. In the second case, the file is treated "locally" as public domain by Wikipedia because it's deemed to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:TOO United States; so, it's not PD enough for Commons, but considered PD for local use on Wikipedia. These types of files are not subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; so, they are not required to be used in at least one article. However, Wikipedia isn't really intended to be an image repository or file hosting service per en:WP:NOTWEBHOST which means that files which go unused on any pages for too long often do end up getting deleted. So, if anyone does upload this locally to Wikipedia, they should add it to an article asap to avoid any possible issues with F5 or NOTWEBHOST. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Trinity Building of 1853, 111 Broadway, New York City.jpg

I just uploaded this on the premise that its copyright must have expired. But there are copyright notices on every page. I assume those refer to the text. Am I right? Thank you for your help. Vzeebjtf (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The photo is certainly in public domain. The copyright notices do refer to the book. Ruslik (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting FOP case study

I am studying copyright considerations to improve my knowledge. This is an interesting case. Which law applies in this case? Malta does not have FOP for 2D works but Belgium does have freedom of panorama.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there has been a court case on this situation, but I believe we have typically used the laws of the country it is in, not the embassy country's laws, in prior situations here. While there is a degree of immunity, the host country's laws still apply there in situations where diplomatic privileges are not needed, I think. Article 41 of the w:Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations does say: Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State. So it would seem the law of the host country still applies in embassies, subject to limitations provided in that treaty. Not sure that FoP would need to change for diplomatic purposes. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it would meet the "permanent" quality that FoP in Belgium requires. --ghouston (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:12_December_protest_in_Brussels_DarMalta.jpg. --ghouston (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

File:BNKLogo.jpg

The file File:BNKLogo.jpg is the logo of "BNK48" girl group and the tagged license of CC is certainly wrong. The file might appears to be too simple for copyright, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirakorn (talk • contribs)

Yes, it is likely {{Pd-textlogo}}. Ruslik (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your discussion. I've removed the CC license tag and added the pd-textlogo template along with trademarked template. -- Sirakorn (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Криничанський хребет.png

Is this free? The uploader only added an oval to the map. Oryginal image from this site. There is no copyright on the site. Images from this site are free? If so, I interested in downloading other forestry maps. --Микола Василечко (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "no copyright". Everything is copyrighted by definition from the moment of creation unless the copyright has already expired. Ruslik (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Please nominate the file for deletion. --Микола Василечко (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Togo the dog 2014-06-17 22-40.jpg: OTRS copyvio report

Hello! We got a deletion request of File:Togo the dog 2014-06-17 22-40.jpg. The sender says that the picture is part of the Ingve/Wielheesen Collection of Sled Dog Image Archives, and was “digitally restored and enhanced and then copyrighted. Enhancements include things like putting detail in the snow and the sky which doesn't exist in the original”. To be honest, I cannot see these differences on the attached original/enhanced pictures, but I can be wrong. Please check the imagine (and the DR); is it public domain now or a copyright violation? Thanks in advance! Bencemac (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If they added expression to a public domain photograph, then that added expression could be copyrightable even if the original photo is PD. I don't think we consider "digital restoration" to be copyrightable, as they are slavishly trying to restore the original work rather than adding creative expression, but the enhancements could be another matter. It's pretty hard to tell without being able to see the original, of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Dubious license permission

en:File:Eurostar icon.svg is tagged {{cc-by-sa-4.0}}, but is an obvious derivative of en:File:NewEurostarLogo.svg which is a non-free image. What's the correct procedure? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It may be too simple to be eligible for copyright. Ruslik (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: I'm not sure about that. The COM:TOO is quite low for the UK. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Currency from Algeria, Barbrados & Bhutan.

The COM:CUR of the nations stated above are pretty vague or doesn't exist. Kingsubash11 uploaded a batch of bank notes onto commons with a "own work" tag which is definitely wrong. I would like to ask if any of the bank notes uploaded by the said user can be kept before I tag them for deletion. After reading COM:CUR Algeria, there is a high chance that the following files are not commons compatible:

Would appreciate if someone can comment on this. Thank you. Minorax (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Picture with a watermark

This image: File:خاسىيەتلىك بايرام -- نورۇز.jpg has a watermark on it. I assume that this means it is probably a copyright violation to upload it here. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Yes, these appear pretty dubious especially given the multitude of different watermarks on this user's various uploads. I marked all of them as copyvios. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverse deletion tag due to two different credits in EXIFs

All of my uploaded pictures were tagged with deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fauziananta due to "two different credits in EXIFs". After I checked on the problem, I found out that two files (File:Mads Pieler Kolding - Indonesia Open 2018.jpg and File:Line Kjaersfeldt - Indonesia Open 2018.jpg) have different author because I edited my own work on my friend's PC and accidentally saved it as a new file thus having different author ("Griff"). If those two files were deleted and then reuploaded with the proper data, will this solve the issue? I asked here because perhaps the admin who did the tagging is so busy and didn't see my message. Fauziananta (talk) 07:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible PD

Is there any realistic possibility of en:File:National Rifle Association.svg or en:File:National Rifle Association official logo.svg being PD in the US? The en:National Rifle Association dates back to 1871, but I'm not sure how far the organization's logos/seal goes back. The only real copyrightable elements in the organization's branding appears to be the eagle imagery, but that imagery has been commonly used as a symbol of the United States since 1782 so many US-based organizations also adopted some form of it. If it predates 1924, then it's too old to be still eligible for copyright protection; however, I'm not sure how to go about figuring that out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Similar variations that predate the current official logo are PD, e.g. File:National Rifle Association of America logo.png and File:National Rifle Association of America trophy - NARA - 26432968 (cropped).jpg, so its possible. It may come down to whether the threshold of originality is surpassed in the derivatives. --Animalparty (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I would not take a third party's vectorization and call it PD. That may have copyrightable elements over and above the visual result. The logo does appear to be rather old, given the above links. The general concept of using a bald eagle as a logo is not copyrightable, but the specific depiction of the eagle can easily be. The logo may have been published without notice before 1978 or 1989 quite easily, but I would be hesitant to straight copy any versions made since then unless they look virtually identical. And even then, I would not copy someone else's vectorization -- make a new one based off a known PD version, would be better. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Animalparty and Clindberg. FWIW, I do share the concerns about the SVG source and agree that an official version (ideally png) found on the NRA official website or in some NRA offcial publication would be better; even when it comes to non-free content uploaded locally to Wikipedia, svg files coming from websites like "Brands of the World" are sometimes a cause of concern. The older PD files found by Animalparty, however, do seem to indicate that this branding was used prior to 1924 and that its basic design doesn't appear to have changed (at least not in a significant way) over the years. I also don't think, but am not sure, that colorizing the original logo is necessarily considered the addition of a new copyrightable element if the same basic design remains unchanged. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Coloring probably not, but tweaking a bunch of the lines a bit is another matter. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Clindberg. There are some differences between File:National Rifle Association of America logo.png and en:File:National Rifle Association official logo.svg in addition to the coloring, but not sure how significant they are. For example, there's no "E Pluribus Unum" in the non-free version and there are also no stars in the ribbon; the eagle's head also seems to be slightly turned to the right in the Commons file, but looking more straight ahead in the non-free. I'm not sure as to what you exactly mean by "lines", but the other differences seem more related to more related to coloring and shading. The eagle is on a solid red background in the non-free version, but there are shading lines (perhaps intended to be smoke?) in the Commons ones. There are also slightly different shading lines used in the ribbons of both images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The E Pluribus Unum difference is meaningless -- that's not original in the context of a federal eagle. Stars in the ribbon probably the same. However, the different drawings of the eagle/rifles and all the positional differences mean they are separate works (not derivative of each other probably, just different drawings of the same idea). Copyright is in the expression, i.e. the precise chosen lines of the drawing. Copying a drawing's expression means copying those exact lines, though "selection and arrangement" can also enter the picture (though not likely when it comes to a federal eagle, as those are common). That is flat-out a different drawing of the eagle, and rifles -- I don't see any copyright relationship with the original other than the general design, which is likely not derivative due to the common nature of the design (and of course the fact that the original is PD, including the selection and arrangement aspects). The head, wings, and tail are all positioned differently, and drawn differently. The SVG would have its own copyright, even before you get to vectorization choices (I think a judge did rule once that a vectorization of a map had its own copyright, even though the original map drawing was PD). Basically, if you asked two different artists to draw the basic design found in the original, you would generally get two copyrightable works (but independent, and not derivative of each other). Sure feels like the SVG is in that realm. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It really helped sort things out for me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Graffiti Bridge.jpg

Not sure about the licensing of this per COM:FOP United States, COM:CSM#Graffiti and COM:CSM#Murals. It's most likely an anonymous public art work for sure, but even so not sure if it wouldn't still be considered something eligible for copyright protection in the US. If it is, then it might need a license such as Template:Non-free graffiti for the actual "mural" itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

You can use {{Pd-text}} on it. Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

New-York Historical Society Digital Collections

The New-York Historical Society Digital Collections display many images from the 19th- and early 20th-century, which should be public domain, but the institution claims copyright and states that commercial use requires permission, which makes them no good for Commons. Is digitization itself copyrightable? Vzeebjtf (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No, digitization does not create new copyright. To claim copyright in this case is Commons:Copyfraud. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Vzeebjtf (talk) 10:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

License of a PLOS One article

Greetings,

this article says it's under a CC-BY license but it does not specify which one. Can someone tell? Thanks! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC) PS: Please {{Ping}} me if you reply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think you forgot the link. GMG ^talk 17:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Woopla. Added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Looks legit to me. The only issue that comes to mind is if there was some indication that any content in the article was itself taken from somewhere else, rather than the original creation of the authors. Otherwise, you should be fine to upload content from it using {{PLOS|version=4.0}}. GMG ^talk 18:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, got this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Questionable own-work

Sorry if this is the wrong place, new at Commons. File:DorisPhyllis1d.jpg is listed as both being taken in 1914 and being the uploader's own work. As this would make the uploader 105 years old, I'm skeptical about this claim. What is the proper procedure for flagging this type of thing? Thanks! Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, there are people who thing "own work" is for when they do the work of uploading. If they are heirs, it's more possible they do actually own the copyright and the tag would be appropriate in that case. File:Doris02.jpg is in the same boat. If there is another license that can be applied, it's preferable to add that rather than deleting. But the source of these are unclear. It's likely that photos that old are PD though, if the author is unknown -- if they are unpublished, copyright expired 70 years after creation, and if published within 70 years, expired 70 years after that date. If the author is known though, the situation changes completely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you! Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Paper or book using Wikipedia contain but published with copyright...

Hi, I wonder what to do with books or paper using massively copy of Wikipedia in citation but published with copy right. It's not fare for me not respecting the cc.by.sa licence when a big part of a work is a copy past of Wikimedia project. I'm thinking for instance to Commons Knowledge an ethnography of Wikipedia but many other academic authors do the same. Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} 01:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you give any example of "the massive copying"? Ruslik (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunetly Ruslik as the book Commons Knowledge an ethnography of Wikipedia is under copy right, I can't send you a example to give you the opportunity to check your self the proportion of Wikipmedia project citation regarding the rest of the text. Is that the law fix a limit to this proposition? Personally, I find it discourteous to publish under copyright a study made from sources published under a free license. So my question is, is it allowed and if so, under what conditions? Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} 17:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It by massive copying you just mean extensive citation of Wikipedia content then, as Prosfilaes noted below, this may well be within the fair use exemption. Ruslik (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is under copyright. They can republish material from Wikipedia, provided they use it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA. They can also use it under fair use, which for a work like this might be fairly extensive.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Lionel Scheepmans: Looking at the preview on Google Books, in this case, no it does not appear that they are properly complying with the CCBYSA license of the source material. In their copyright info, they state that no one may reproduce or transmit any portions of the book without permission. That's simply wrong. They note this to some extent in page 236, where they say the glossary taken from Wikipedia is CCBYSA and can be reused, but they seem to miss the point that all of the substantive content taken from Wikipedia is licensed in the same way. They may claim fair use for their own purposes, but claiming fair use doesn't allow you to re-license the content and apply additional restrictions.
However, the individual editors who wrote the content they are reusing would be the ones infringed upon, and they would need to be the ones to take action. The Foundation can't really take action against people for improperly copying from Wikipedia, because the Foundation doesn't own the content, they merely host it. GMG ^talk 18:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

If you're concerned about Wikipedia, you can add w:Template:Published to talk pages of used articles, which will notify editors that the page has been published, and even let's you note that it was done illegally.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes@GreenMeansGo@Ruslik0 Thanks a lot for your comments, than I'm consulting right now in the context of writing my doctoral thesis. Have a nice year ! Lionel Scheepmans ^{✉ Contact} 13:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Potential copyvio and request

Hello! I had asked riley for some help, but he/she is apparently taking a break. User:1989 told me to come here to ask for some help. Veverve (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Veverve. I see you and ~riley had discussed this at riley's talk page, and part of the problem seems to be resolved now. Can you please explain the current issue a little bit? Thank you. Ahmad^talk 09:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It concerns the files File:Third Millenium Bible without paper cover - some psalms.jpg and File:Third Millenium Bible without paper cover - Genesis 1.jpg. As I wrote to ~riley: "I will try to check whenever I can if those pages use the text of the King James Bible. However, the cross-references would still be the TMB's copyrighted work so please tell me if I have to go through the hassle of checking." So, are those pages worth checking if the text is the one from the KJV? And if the text is not the one from the KJV, do I have to remove those files? Veverve (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I would say that if this is a copyrighted derivative work, then it would be a copyright violation to upload it without the author's permission. Of course, if the text hasn't changed, it's safe to keep it here. Ahmad^talk 16:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Silo-based RT-23 (SS-24) nose cone folding mechanism.jpg

The claim that this is "own work" seems possibly true, but not really plausible, especially given all of the warnings about image licensing added regarding other files to the uploader's user talk page. There's no EXIF data really to speak which seems like there should be if the photo was taken by the uploader on December 7, 2019 and then subsequently uploaded to Commons; at the same time, however, I cannot find the photo being used anywhere online which might be the original source. Is this license OK as is or should it be OTRS verified? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

"The last RT-23 ICBM in Russia was eliminated in April 2008". It seems impossible for such a photo to be taken in December 2019. Ruslik (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Category question

It was not my intention to create a new category. The category Bernd Huppauf has been in use for some time and contains six images. I wanted to include two further photos for which the photographer hass been paid 3 years ago. What can I do to have the photos integrated in the existing category under my name? Best Bernd Hüppauf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernd huppauf (talk • contribs) 21:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bernd huppauf. The reasons the photos you uploaded were tagged for deletion has nothing to do with the category you created; they were tagged because a Commons administrator named Didym was unable to verify your copyright ownership over the photos. Generally, it's the photographer taking a photo, not the subject of the photo, who is considered the copyright holder and Commons only can accept photos which have been released under a free license by their copyright holders. You can verify that you're indeed the copyright holder of the photos as explained in Commons:OTRS by sending a consent email to Wikimedia OTRS. The email address is not specifically given in the templates added to the files' page, but just click on the blue "confirm copyright ownership by email" and a window will open where you can see the address. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)