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.
What's the process for confirming permission acquired via a chat transcript?
I've asked a YouTube user who's also on Facebook to use a video they'd uploaded. Here's the transcript of our discussion (via FB messenger):
Me: Hi! I'd like to use your video (the one below) on Wikipedia. However, for Wikipedia to use your material, you must agree to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (often referred to as CC-BY-SA). In essence, CC-BY-SA allows you to retain the copyright and authorship of your work, but grants permission for others to use, copy, and share your materials freely, and even potentially use them commercially, so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using or copying them freely (e.g., "share-alike"). If you grant permission for use, we will credit you for your work under whatever name you prefer, and state that it is used with your permission. Let me know, thanks!
Them: Yea thats fine. You can credit me, Jay Mendoza
You'll need the individual/author to send permission via VRT using the interactive release generator or via email, per COM:CONSENT. For legal reasons, Commons needs a clear statement from the copyright holder. PascalHD (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
@NatwonTSG2: Assuming the license is accurate, that seems a sufficiently broad license for Commons & Wikipedia's purposes. What concerns you? - Jmabel ! talk01:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
so i can use this file for my sandbox articles? Also I usallay animator but i would go on wikipedia than my animaton maker app. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Low-res and/or no EXIF is a poor reason for deletion for mobile uploads
Hy. This was exactly the reason why I've asked Gea to check this out just after the uploading, I don't want any problems. IKhitron (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it's OK. They used the wrong icon, but the wording and (most important to me) the license URL is BY-SA 4.0. The URL is the one with the legal terms, which is reinforced by the matching license name. Would not hurt to point out the discrepancy to them, of course. They probably changed licenses one way or the other at some point, and didn't updated some of the components, but to me the legal terms URL is the most important one. Admittedly if the text did not match the URL, it'd make me a bit more nervous -- the intent was likely different than the license given. But in this case, it seems most likely they intended CC-BY-SA 4.0 and simply forgot about the icon. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I need to use the audio from YouTube link for 21st birthday speech in Cape Town, South Africa. Also for King George V's Christmas broadcast from 1932 in this link from the BBC website, how should I license as {{PD-UKGov}}? Surveyor Mount (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but that would have expired after 50 years from broadcast (since non-rectroactively extended to 70 years, in 2013). If Elizabeth was reading from a pre-written statement, that would be a literary copyright, but quite probably expired Crown Copyright in that case. The last problem would be the U.S. protection of sound recordings. Unsure if a broadcast from the crown itself would also count as Crown Copyright under the terms at the time (most of BBC's stuff was not Crown Copyright, but anything prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department was), in which case it would be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
EdonisaHalimi: We cannot use them without them being released by the copyright holder, under a free licence we accept. The copyright holder person is usually the photographer and not the subject of the photo or iStock. You need to clarify their copyright status before uploading otherwise they will be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
License to apply to a collage of one OGLv1 Crown Copyright image and three public domain images
Hi, I've produced a simple collage of four other images on wikimedia commons, one OGLv1, three public domain (two stating the work is ineligible, one because it is part of the Austrian Straßenverkehrszeichenverordnung) File:Maxweightrating_collage.svg. I added the wikitext for both the OGLv1 license and Austrian public domain license. Now looking at it I'm guessing I should have just applied the OGLv1 license, except the text doesn't quite seem to fit. Is this what I should do? Is there another, better option? Thanks Tommycrocker (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright status of images taken by automated cameras. (Traffic enforcement, speed, red light, etc)
Hi. For me this is a completely hypothetical scenario but what is the stance on the copyright status of images captured through AUTOMATED cameras. For example speed limit and red light enforcement cameras that trigger when a vehicle passes them and detects a violation. Would images from these devices be OK to upload to Commons going by UK copyright rules. I've tried searching and can't find much. But from my understanding might be PD in US due to the automated nature of the cameras in question hence potential lack of a human author. Or would the copyright of the image rest upon the driver who triggered the camera since they ran the red, sped past the camera hence triggering it just like you depressing the shutter release on your own SLR to capture the image.
There are two problems with this. First, there is an assumption that the camera is in a fixed position, when many traffic cameras can be rotated or the angle changed by control room operators. This negates the automated aspect as an employee of the organisation is making a conscious decision as to the framing. Second, UK court rulings have indicated that copyright does exist for CCTV cameras (See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Armed Robbery at Post Office CCTV Footage - Digital Surveillance Los Angeles.webm). Other jurisdictions may have similar views/rulings. @Grendelkhan: I would advise against the bold action here; there are more nuances to capture in your template wording. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
To clarify I am talking about fixed, still image cameras. Not PTZ CCTV video cameras. An example of the cameras I am on about would be the old faithful Gatso-type speed cameras deployed in the UK. Pic of said camera(Sorry it’s massive, idk how to shrink it!): Gatso_CameraSlenderman7676 (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
In Germany and Austria these would be simple photographs (de:Lichtbild), protected for 50 years from first publication (or from creation if not published within 50 years from creation). An image from an automated surveillance / security camera in Argentina (File:LaPazMendoza Security Camera.jpg) I had deleted was recently restored without determining its copyright status in Argentina, despite me having explicitly asked about it. --Rosenzweigτ14:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment There is no copyright for these images in France, as Works without a particular or original character, which are trivial reproductions are not protected (see COM:France). Yann (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi! I'm not familiar with procedures on Commons, but while working on enwiki I came across some contributions by Geerolamo Frescobaldi. They've uploaded 7 scans of pictures and articles from newspapers, dating from 1974 to 1997, and tagged them with cc-by-sa-4.0. From the URLs they provided as a source, I'm not seeing any reason this is correct. What's the proper procedure here? Should they be individually tagged for deletion? Thanks for your help! --Rchard2scout (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
It was a U.S. company (split from the British parent in 1921), so presumably would follow notice and renewal requirements. Not sure I saw a notice in the source video. I see some renewals from "Pathe News, Inc." which I think was a company which ended up with the rights, but I don't see any for this particular "News Magazine of the Screen" series as far as I can tell. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This is not as clear cut as you may think. The document you link says, "The Summary Data will consist of three classes. The first two classes will consist of a representative image from each of the imaging experiments, and key parameters from the non-imaging experiments." If we accept that the summary data is in the public domain then only the "representative image" is in the public domain. Is it possible for us to distinguish between "representative" images and "other" images? I also note that on the Wikipedia discussion there is a comment that non-commercial use is merely a suggestion of the SOHO copyright notice but that is a misinterpretation. "Non-commercial purposes is strongly encouraged" ≠ "commercial use is allowed." From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the statement on non-commercial use, what I meant was that it only suggests ("it is requested [...] that any such use") attribution be given, but does not state attribution is required. Additionally, "non-commercial purposes is strongly encouraged and requires no expressed authorization" does not imply commercial use is prohibited. It makes no comment on whether images or data can be used for commercial purposes. The copyright notice is therefore just a suggestion that any non-commercial use be properly attributed. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
That is not how copyright licensing works. "You didn't tell me I couldn't do something, so I thought it was okay," is an invalid argument. If the licence is silent on a particular permission, then that permission is not granted. In this case it is silent on commercial use, so permission for commercial use has not been granted for anything covered by that licence. However, if we can determine that the images are in the "public domain" (in the copyright sense of the term) then the licence wouldn't apply. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense. I was under the impression that their notice was a summary of a more in depth data rights policy specified elsewhere. Though this seems implausible in hindsight, and my knowledge of copyright is extremely limited. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
In table 3.2 you can see what those summary data images are. A search at virtual solar observatory archive for the SOHO instrument data shows that the instrument data are available and as a thumbnail image with the resolution mentioned in table 3.2 for the summary data images. Also, concerning SWAN, the SOHO website mentions the available archive images as SWAN Summary Images, again in line with the operations plan that mentions that summary data are available with images. C messier (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, it is not clear which sense of "public domain" is being used by the document. There is a strong implication with the phrasing in the associated paragraphs that they mean "public domain" in terms of "accessible to the public" and not "all copyright restrictions removed." We would probably need something with a clearer statement to say that they are waiving all copyright restrictions. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Public domain has a certain meaning. The next sentence, that concerns the accessibility of the data, uses only the word public, and not public domain, so the assumption that "public domain" referes to accessibility (or that NASA doesn't know what public domain means) isn't supported by the document. C messier (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
"Public domain has a certain meaning." No, it has two primary uses and probably a few less common ones. As stated in the Oxford English Learner's dictionary, "something that is in the public domain is available for everyone to use or to discuss and is not secret."[2] In that definition there is no mention of copyright or ownership, only accessibility. This same usage also comes up in guidance from the UK Information Commissioner on what constitutes as public domain.[3] Assuming that all uses of "public domain" refers exclusively to copyright is flawed thinking. It may be what the authors of that SOHO document intended but the lack of any reference to other copyright terminology suggests otherwise. As I said, we need a clear statement to clarify their intention. Unconfirmed assumptions will just cause problems. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
In the LASCO data use policy (LASCO is an organ onboard SOHO) is mentioned that the "data are completely open and unrestricted". It then mentions that "it is asked for the LASCO team be acknowledged". Farther down mentions that "the data files can be grouped into various image types with different formats. The image formats are either FITS, JPEG, GIF or postscript..." C messier (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
John Stavropoulos released the X-Card (a supplemental safety tool for TTRPGs) in 2013 under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) License. The source is a Google Doc. Just wanted to double check that this was something that could be uploaded here before I did it. Thanks! (Moved question from Commons:Help desk as I didn't realize I asked in the wrong place). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Public domain images being published somewhere does not change their status. Many copyrighted journals use third-party images, which are either PD, fair use or (often non-exclusively) licensed for that use. –LPfi (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, a copyright issue about images in Category:Léon Schulz. I cropped 6 of the images (the 7th is a editor logo) from a book published in 1922, but discover now that the illustrator died in 1969. Should these images be deleted? --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and undelete in 2040, unless they were first published in USA (which probably isn't the case as he is French). C messier (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
date of undelete photos
[4] in this case, the date of the photograph is unknown. We know that the immortalized locomotive ran until 1935. The only case of publication of the photo is a book from 1995. After how many years can the photo be undeleted? actually in 2031? {{PD-old-assumed}} – for works assumed to be public domain because they were created over 120 years ago. Could someone explain to me if 2031 is actually the right one? 5.173.112.6214:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Sadly, probably so. Looks like User:Waleed Khan Swati uploaded two images (both now deleted) with watermarks of a name matching the account name, then disappeared, so we had no chance to clear up through VRT whether the account-holder was the same person as the copyright-holder. - Jmabel ! talk18:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Can we trust images from NASA's Spacecraft Icons page?
NASA has a high-quality collection of spacecraft images on its Spacecraft Icons page. As there is no mention of third-party copyrights, this should mean they are in public domain. However, some images of non-U.S. spacecraft appear to come from other sources. For example, this image of the ExoMars orbiter is basically identical to an image credited to the ESA with the exception that the latter has a background. I also found this image of JUICE on the ESA website. [5] This calls the copyright status of those images into question.
It could also be that the ESA allowed NASA to use those images on PD terms. It would not strictly speaking be PD-USGov in that case but not much practical difference. A little doubt for sure, but don't think it rises to a significant doubt yet, at least for images on that particular page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, the NCDOT has an official Flickr account with images all under a Wiki-compactable license. So it does seem the organization supports some or most of their work being used by the public. DiscoA340 (talk) 04:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
If that Flickr account is theirs, then the licenses on that Flickr account should be valid for the photos that their staff took (unless there are relevant COM:FOP considerations). If you could get that email to VRT, that would be very helpful. The license would also need to allow for the creation of derivative works and could not impose any restrictions on commercial use; a mere license to repost the images (with credit) is a form of a no-derivatives license, so we'd need something expressly stating that there is permission to modify, re-use, and distribute the images provided that proper credit is given. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)01:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that anything published before 1923 is public domain, so a score published before 1923 should be public domain. If I take such a score to create an audio file, the audio file should be clear, no? or is there any catch?
If this is okay, what should I say when the system asks me if the file is my own work? It would be true that I created the audio file, but it’d basically just be a transcription of the score, which is not my own work. Anyone has insights on this? Thanks! Al12si (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@Al12si: Meaning you do all the performance yourself? If so, yes, you are in the clear.
(Edit conflict)The music itself might be with the public domain if it's old enough, but performances of the music might not be. So, if you record your own version of an old song, it would likely be protected by copyright. If you were the only person involved in the creation, you'd would seem to be the sole copyright holder of your version, and can upload it under a free license if you want. If, however, your version incorporated (i.e. sampled) other content created by others, then I believe that could be considered a COM:DW (if the other content is protected by copyright) and you couldn't upload it without getting the COM:CONSENT of the other copyright holder or holders. I'm assuming that's what you mean by audio-file, but if not then please clarify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I would interpret "take such a score to create an audio file" as giving the digitised score to some music program, which would produce a midi or waw file, probably using additional input to get an interpretation of the piece (nobody plays music exactly by the notes, and your contribution above the threshold of originality is what creates the copyright). I think most such programs don't encumber the result with any additional copyrights, but if you use external sound samples or the like, you may have to take those into account.
Playing and recording the score by yourself would likewise give you the copyright. If there are more of you, you own the copyright together and you should e-mail VRT (copyrights on performances, recording etc. are different from copyrights on works, but that is mostly irrelevant as your licence will be what counts for quite some time).
For "own work?", do as you will, but edit the author field to include both the composer and yourself. If you don't claim own work you can do that already in the wizard.
If your score isn't from the USA, its copyright will probably last 70 years after the death of the author, and thus may still subsist. Commons does honour that foreign copyright. –LPfi (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@LPfi – yes, that’s what I did. Spent like 3 hours typing the score into a digtal file and just rendered it; my skills are too low to actually perform the music. But the file isn’t playing through Commons and I can’t figure out what’s wrong; I might as well try to do more in terms of interpretation before I try again. Al12si (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Can screenshots of your own Minecraft builds be shared under CC licences?
If you went out of your way to use a freely-licensed resource pack and ensured that no natural MC terrain is visible (only your own build can be seen), could you release the screenshot under a CC licence, since you're essentially using MC as a 3D modelling program and you are not showing anything that is copyrighted by Mojang/Microsoft? Félix An (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Probably yes, if you remove all creative works by Mojang from screenshot. Question is, would this screenshot be useful for article about Minecraft? Borysk5 (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
No, it's not for the article about Minecraft. I want to make my own creative works in Minecraft, just for fun. Félix An (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
A vinyl single from Mexico
Reading COM:Mexico, I couldn't find info about typographical arrangements especially of Mexican vinyl recording products, like this one. Or maybe I overlooked something. I can't help wonder whether the Mexican law can still protect such works that aren't eligible for US copyright. George Ho (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
More about Guatemalan FoP
If you don't understand what I am talking about, read this old VP discussion for some background information/context.
Is the Guatemalan FoP restriction retroactive? I.e., if an image was published before the date of this new act*, do the new more restrictive FoP restrictions apply to it? This is important for images like File:CocaCola-001.jpg.
*(Note: the exact date is 30 days after publication in the Guatemalan official gazette, per Article 139. I don't know when this was published in the official gazette.)
I recently participated in an undeletion request[6] regarding images I had uploaded from an Argentinian music magazine Pelo. As some of you may know, Argentinian copyright is very short compared to the US (20 years after publication; {{PD-AR-Photo}}). It was decided in this request that such images should not be restored as "Although some admins ignore... Policy is that works need to be public domain in both the U.S. and the country of origin." & "While policy is that we will not go through and mass delete pre--2012 files, recent uploads that are under copyright in the USA due to the URAA must be deleted...". That's fine, I will abide.
However, there are many more Pelo images that still remain on the Commons which are tagged {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}. If the images I uploaded had to be removed due to the Commons policy, than the rest should go to. I wanted to get some consensus from the Community before engaging in any sort of mass deletions. Many images can be found in the Commons category here. (Images from 1970 and earlier are PD in the US with the tag {{PD-1996}} - which can stay.)PascalHD (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
It seems to be common practice to delete images of modern bridges in France under the notion that they are creative architectural works (see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Loudumo for just one example) and France lacks an acceptable freedom of panorama. I've challenged this norm because it does not seem to have any evidence behind it (or at least no one had provided me any evidence). It is true that some bridge builders claim copyright on their works, but there does not seem to be any basis for this in either French statue or case law. In closing the discussion, Rosenzweig cited French IP law that included works of architecture as protected objects. I am admittedly not a French language speaker, but I cannot find evidence that bridges are even considered works of architecture in the French language (e.g., the authoritative Dictionnaire de l’Académie française). A few English dictionaries consider bridges architecture, but it seems like French law would follow the French language. If someone can give me some good evidence that bridges are protected in France, I'm happy to let this drop. As for now though, I feel that we are misapplying the precautionary principle. There has to be at least some good evidence a work is protected for us to apply this policy. There has to be significant doubt to whether a file is free. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
One thing I would like to add (I brought it up in the deletion rationale) is that unlike US law, French law apparently does not distinguish between buildings (which are protected by copyright) and structures (which are not). Instead, oeuvres [...] d'architecture (works of architecture) are listed among the types of works which can be protected. Hence IronGargoyle's question if bridges are such works of architecture. I favored the pragmatic approach here, posing that they are works, and if they have an architect, they are works of architecture. Others may apparently disagree. --Rosenzweigτ17:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
That is pragmatic, but would get a lot of bridges deleted. I assume "work" in copyright parlance means a copyrightable creation. The everyday meaning of the word leads astray. Who plans a work also should not have any influence on the copyrightability. Does a boardwalk over a ditch become a work of architecture if placed there by an architect? We need comments from people who know French copyright law. –LPfi (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Some bridges in France are co-created by architects. It would be super convoluted to determine what images should be deleted as copyright violations based purely on the job titles of whomever built the bridges. It's also not how copyright law works. Copyrights are granted based on what the works are and where they are located. Not on the job titles of the people who create them. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Personally I treat France as very restrictive in public work and art copyright, considering their politicians and artists' societies opposed Wikimedia's FOP free culture movement. Thus I expect they will treat public bridges with distinct character, like Millau Viaduct, as copyrightable objects and their owners like Millau's CEVM as valid guardians of architects' copyrights (CEVM being the guardian of Architect Norman Foster's property rights on Millau Viaduct, read this).
Over in our region, Thailand has similar copyright rules on bridges. In their definition of architecture, it includes "buildings" and "constructions". Constructions include bridges by the nature of the definition in Thai copyright law, so Thai bridges designed by living or recently-deceased people are under designers' copyrights. _ JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)09:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The French IP law is indeed very restrictive, *everything* is protected as soon as it's created, even if it's not finished, if it's not published and regardless of the occupation of the author (see the first two articles L111-1 and L111-2). So by *everything* obviously each and any building/construction are also included. Then there is a lot of case law, that sometimes confirm, sometimes infirms the law (mainly based on the threshold or originality and the "inmprint of the author personnality"). You can see fr:Droit d'auteur des œuvres architecturales en France for more details (where among other things, it's explicitely said that non-architect - like urbanist and engineer - have rights on construction). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately for us, Rosenzweig is probably right. There is no difference, copyright wise, between different kinds of structures built by architects. Ordinary highway bridges are probably OK, but as soon as some special or original design is involved, bridges are probably covered by copyright law in France. IANAL through. Yann (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Since a few years France law was coming from no FOP to no commercial uses, and as french and as a "direct interior witness" I feel (hope) quite possible a next step toward FOP in the next years. I never saw an exemple of a French case law that allow us to think that bridges are not protected under Copright law, and I think the deletion of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Loudumo is justified. Espacially here, indeed in this case the Millau Viaduc is undoubtedly unique, and is the main subject of the photos. Christian Ferrer(talk)14:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
"Texts of enactments" are free from copyright in Zimbabwe; this should cover the texts of those versions of the anthem printed in the 2013 constitution.
However, I am unsure to what extent this also applies for the sheet music included in the constitution, which may not be a 'text' in the sense of the Copyright Law. Felix QW (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Category:Files from foundin a attic Flickr stream
This category contains upwards of 1,600 files uploaded from the eponymous Flickr stream (on the bad authors list), which seem entirely to be scans of works whose copyright is not held by the Flickr stream owner.
The issue with a mass deletion request is that there is really minimal information on the provenance of the images, but they tend to be quite old and could therefore be PD for various reasons.
Unless someone has a better idea, I would make a tracking subcategory of PD files from that stream and try to mark those properly for which we have enough information to be (reasonably) certain they are indeed PD. Then, by the precautionary principle, I would nominate the remainder for deletion in a mass DR, or in several batches, if that is found preferable.
What does make you think that these slides are not the Flickr user's own works? I don't see any information which would lead to that. Yann (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
There was a brief discussion about it on this Village Pump earlier this year. Many of the images are obviously commercial (such as postcards or magic lantern slides) and have not been separately credited, there is absolutely no provenance information, there are upwards of 100,000 uploads spanning more than 130 years and across Asia, Europe and the US, and the Flickr user (whose stream has even been called found in a attic) has not really claimed own photography either. Felix QW (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but copyright regarding old postcards is completely different. They are most probably in the public domain for the uploader: PD-US for US works, and PD-old for European works, although they may be covered by the URAA. Yann (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced, but I do see your point. I just still find it highly unlikely that someone would make photos in Japan in the 1930s, then from the inside of Camp Blanding PoW camp in 1944 and of Munich in 1945, among many others. Felix QW (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
And there really is nothing on the Flickr stream putting any of this into a coherent story, or any personal information. Had someone uploaded those images straight to Commons in this way, then surely someone would ask questions. I don't really see why it should be different with a Flickr detour, as there is no more vetting there than there is here. But of course reasonable people can certainly disagree on such things. Felix QW (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
It's quite clear to me that this individual just collects images/slides, & scans and uploads to a Flickr archive. It's possible they took some of the photos, but we will never know for sure because there is hardly any informative descriptions, authorship details or proper dates on any of the photos. Only way to know for sure is to reach out directly, but I don't see an email on the account. Try commenting? PascalHD (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright assessment for Indian photos
I'm wondering if someone at VPC might be able to help me figure out the copyright status of this photo of en:Vijay Vasant Tambay. The article the photo appears in is from March 2019 (at least that's what Google Translate says), but it looks like a crop of a similar photo being used by a number of websites like this and this. The subject has been missing in the line of duty since 1971, but some believe he's still alive and being held as a POW by Pakistan. This photo looks like it might possibly be an official military photo given that he appears to be in full dress uniform in the uncropped versions. Given the date of the subject's disappearance and that he was in the Indian Air Force, I'm assuming that the country of first publication was India and it was taken prior to December 1971. According to COM:India, Indian copyright law recognizes copyright on photos for up to 60 years after first publication in the case of anonymous or government works, which seems to mean anything taken in 1971 would be PD in 2032, but it's possible I'm missing something here. There are two more photos of Tambay found here on Twitter that also appear to be official military photo, but I can't find out anything about their provenance. Finally, there's another different photo of him already uploaded to English Wikipedia as en:File:Damayanti Wedding Image.jpg which is attributed to this article and is licensed as non-free, but I think that's incorrectly being attributed to the writer of the article since it's more of a personal photo (a wedding photo perhaps?) that seems to date back to 1970. Anyway, if I can find a PD image of Tambay, then the non-free one uploaded to English Wikipedia will no longer be needed. If I can't, then the non-free one can probably be cropped to show just him and then added to the English Wikipedia article about him. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
It seems accurate to say that the photos are not in the public domain in India until around 2030, but that comes with the usual implication of URAA restoration. Therefore, it wouldn't be PD in the US until much later, I think. Felix QW (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Review needed for image scheduled for enwiki main page
This file is in queue for a DYK appearance on April 26th. A question has been asked about whether the licensing is okay for the main page. Is there a way to ask for a reviewer to check it? Thanks! Valereee (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not an Commons admin, but the license seems fine as long as you assume that the two artists themselves either took the photo or had someone take it for them (e.g. en:work-for-hire), and the artwork in the background is also theirs (which seems to be the case). It kind of looks like the the woman in the photo is holding a camera (maybe a smart phone with a selfie-stick) in her left hand, but that's just a guess. For reference, this looks like a similar photo with only the man holding the camera. Things could possibly get murky if someone tries to crop the photo, but the two artists seem to have knowingly included their artwork in the photo and thus it's probably going to be assumed they understood the implications of doing so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@Marchjuly and @Valereee: I am not seeing any problems with this very image. The file has been uploaded by an experienced license reviewer @GRuban and I am able to see the release on Instagram post and have passed the license review. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I however have another observation, ofcourse, because we learn every minute. The image appears to be taken by Maya Devir but is released by Jude Devir. This appears to be that Jude has no problems with his art being in the background - but not being the actual photographer, is he eligible to release the copyright? The reason I accepted the license is likely because of Commons_talk:Own_work#Possible_incorrect_claim. That's to say, I used common sense but I can be wrong as well. ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi: I was going to make the point regarding Maya being the photographer and how that affects copyright. Maya is clearly the (presumptive) copyright holder of that image, as she appears to be the one holding the camera. I don't think one has the capacity to release copyrights of one's spouse's work in the without the consent of one's spouse in the United States, but I'm not 100% sure about how the original copyright would vest in Israel. This breaks down into one of two cases:
If the copyright is common property of the two spouses, then Jude probably has the right to release that photo under CC-BY-SA 4.0, and the license would be probably valid.
If the copyright is not common property of the two spouses, Maya could have transferred the rights to Jude (either via an employment agreement, as in Israel the employer is the first owner of works or hire absent agreement otherwise, or in some other ad hoc way), but I think that would have had to have been done in writing at some point for the U.S. copyright to have been transferred, and I frankly have no idea if that happened.
COM:ISRAEL says that In general, the author of a work is the first owner of copyright, so I think we're probably in the latter case if the location of first publication is in Israel. (We also have to consider the possibility that the photo's place of first publication was Romania, the country where the photo appears to have been taken, but from the context it looks like they were back home in Israel when the photo was published to IG).
So, we have evidence that Jude has released any copyright he may hold in the image under CC-BY-SA 4.0. As for whether that alone is sufficient, I'm not fully satisfied. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I think that File:Logo Ta'al.png is probably incorrectly licensed since the uploader is most likely not the copyright holder and the logo seems like it would be {{PD-textlogo}} per both COM:TOO United States and COM:TOO Israel; however, I'm unable to access the source website to check whether the file is actually being used since the link appears to be dead. An archived link for the source can be found here, but it's a slightly different logo and there's no indication of a license. The same file was uploaded as non-free content to English Wikipedia (en:File:Ta'al party logo.png) with the same source link for use in en:Ta'al, but that file would no longer be needed if the one uploaded to Commons is OK. Any opinions on whether the Commons file is OK to keep and whether it needs to be relicensed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Licensing of digitally remastered images that have been scanned and uploaded
A publisher who owns the original data of an image whose copyright has expired (scanned and uploaded) has published a digitally remastered version of the image on their website. Which license should I choose in this case? Please let us know.--Araisyohei(talk)11:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
In a recent exchange on the help desk, a remark by User:Elizium23 which I suspect involved at least some confusion on either their part or mine (I'm beginning to think mine), sent me looking at en:Wikipedia:Public domain and, in particular, at en:Wikipedia:Public domain#Artworks. I realize that en-wiki policy is not Commons policy, but I would think this is an area in which we would hope to harmonize them, and the policy laid down there differs greatly from actual Commons practice. If I read the text there correctly, it seems to say that even for an artist from several centuries ago, it is mandatory to prove certain things about the publication history of a work, and that exhibition specifically does not count as publication. So, for example, for an 1885 painting by an artist who died in 1919, where our source is a book published in 1998, it is (quoting this word from that page) mandatory to prove that the artwork was either published somewhere before 1928 or for some other specific reason (e.g. a 1928-1964 publication that didn't have its copyright renewed) has passed into the public domain in the U.S. I'm pretty certain that almost no one here does the legwork of proving that for a pre-1900 artwork where the artist died more that 100 years ago. Note that they are pretty specific about it being mandatory to prove that, not even (for example) the common sense that if there was a catalogue raisonné of the artist's works, this work was presumably in it, but actual proof (which I assume would have to mean that you've seen that catalogue raisonné and can cite a page). Does Commons have a different policy on this issue of proving publication? Where is our policy (whether the same or different) spelled out? To be honest, even though I've been an admin on both en-wiki and Commons for over 15 years, this particular claim of having to prove that is new to me.
Further: consider a case like Category:Black and white group portrait photographs at the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition by Frank H. Nowell. We know Nowell took these photos in his professional capacity, and that they were routinely sold in multiples to the subjects of the photos (plus Nowell retaining an archival negative or positive, which is how they ended up at the University of Washington which is how we have them). But it would not surprise me if there is not a single image in that category for which the Commons page gives proof positive that these multiple copies were made, and very few for which we could trace any publication prior to the UW posting them to the Internet, for which posting we don't have a specific date and which for at least some of them could be before 2003 (apparently if they are 2003 or later, they are in the public domain based on the date of Nowell's death). This seems to me like an enormous can of worms. - Jmabel ! talk04:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Just a tangential comment in relation to the last paragraph. I've often wondered that about cabinet cards and stereo cards, where a photography studio prints a version for the original buyer under the pretense that more can be produced on demand, but there's zero evidence of it ever happening (mostly likely duplicates were never produced. Especially with smaller local studios). So assuming they only printed one copy would that count as the cabinet card or stereo card being published? Who knows. I've never been sure myself. If so though, then I do wonder what the difference between that and a single, non-published photograph is. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, possibly getting ahead of myself: if we have (as I now suspect we may) hundreds of thousands of images that meet our own de facto or de jure rules but do not meet those of the English-language Wikipedia, should we perhaps have a template to mark those? And are there other, different policies on some of the other Wikipedias? Very few of the other Wikipedias even have a page analogous to en:Wikipedia:Public domain (there is none in any of the other languages that I can read and, indeed, none in any other Germanic or Romance language). - Jmabel ! talk05:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
My impression is that we don't require evidence of publication for PD-old-assumed media. Whether we do or not, that could be a reasonable policy. I think the legal US situation is very confusing, where artefacts from pharaohs' graves can be under US copyright, if an heir of the artist (perhaps the archaeologist) happened to approve publication in 1989–2002. This at least according to COM:USA.
For most anonymous 19th century works that were published in that timespan, the probability of a rights owner popping up is very small. The PCP forbids such assumptions, but it is a policy, and we shouldn't have policies that lead to absurdities. This is a legal risk we probably can afford (we can of course add some years, but we cannot get the risk down to zero if we want to keep the pharaonic artefacts).
For works of famous artists it is more problematic, but one would assume that a copyright statement would have accompanied the work at that late publication, and absence of such would indicate that the publisher wasn't aware of the remaining copyright or didn't care. If so, the publishing might have been unlawful and thereby invalid, which means it has entered the public domain as unpublished.
one would assume that a copyright statement would have accompanied the work at that late publication: if that publication is in a book, would that mean assuming there was a distinct copyright notice for the particular work, independent of the copyright of the book?
Given that you seem to agree that we have adopted a looser standard than the one laid down in an en-wiki policy, do you think we need some sort of tag for images that might not meet en-wiki's criteria of "mandatory proof"? I would think that at the very least we should probably post to en:Wikipedia talk:Public domain to let them know about this discrepancy, in case they want to take some action from their side. - Jmabel ! talk18:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I was probably mislead by thinking of just some examples. We should ask people who actually know what the practices might have been in different kinds of publication. If the author is well-known, we should probably assume that their heirs know about them, and about the inherited copyright. As publishing on the internet became practical in 1989–2002, that may indeed have been the time when a photographers' personal archives (or some previously unpublished pearls) got published.
Officially, we require a template explaining why a work is PD in the USA, and {{PD-old-assumed}} has a warning in small print. However, I don't think even 19th-century works get deleted because of lack of provenance. I assume an admin who deletes pharaonic artefacts because their first publication was in the 1990s would get quite some critique. We should probably have something similar to PD-old-assumed for publication, but that would require a change in our policy.
PD-old-assumed is partly based on the U.S. term of 120 years from creation being PD (the earlier of that, or 95 years from publication) when the author is unknown. That is only for works published since 1978 technically, but it is there in the law. When it comes to publication, we do often assume works were published around the time they were created -- most works are made for a reason. COM:PRP requires there to be no significant doubt; it does not require that there be no doubt at all or preclude making some assumptions. While it's theoretically possible for a work to have remained unpublished for decades, but then fortuitously published before some cutoff date to create a very long copyright, it's exceedingly unlikely and those usually do not amount to significant doubts. When it comes to copyright, you can never be entirely sure. We assume the country of origin most of the time as well, based on what seems most likely even though it is often theoretically possible to have been published somewhere else earlier. We need to do the best we can with the information we have. We assume good faith all the time, as well -- we assume the uploader is the author, and only delete when there is evidence that amounts to a significant doubt (such as being published elsewhere first). If there is a specific reason to think that a work did remain unpublished for a long time, such as works coming out of an artist's estate, that could affect things. If it appears in a book, how did the book author get a copy? If from the original author's family, that could well be unpublished, but if from elsewhere then it was probably published earlier. Or if it was without authorization, then it could be unpublished even if in a book. In the end, the policy is significant doubt.
The en-wiki policy, for all its detail, isn't entirely correct. While it is true in the current U.S. law (and most everywhere else), exhibition is not publication, that was not necessarily the case before 1978 though -- see Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. The U.S. situation can get very tortured in other situations, finding the difference between limited publication and general publication (court districts have disagreed somewhat on that). In Europe, while exhibition is also not publication, it is however "making available to the public", and the terms in {{PD-anon-70-EU}} actually start from "making available to the public", not "publication", even though we often write that when we mean the former. As with anything related to copyright, details can get mind-numbingly complex. I did go into some of the gory U.S. details in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg: I completely agree with you on the legal aspects (especially about the trickiness of exhibition as publication pre-1978; also, I find myself wondering, while not the issue for most of these images, what else can it really mean to "publish" a singular sculpture?). The problem I'm pointing up is if en-wiki has a policy (this is Wikipedia policy, not law) mandating positive proof and we on Commons have more of a significant/reasonable doubt standard, then there are presumably a lot of images on Commons that do not meet en-wiki's standards. Ultimately, that's much more of a problem for en-wiki than for Commons, but I think it is only collegial of us to try to help work it through. Should we (for their benefit) be tagging images where we fall short of their standard? Short of that, should we at least post something on en:Wikipedia talk:Public domain advising them if this discrepancy, because I don't think it's been called out, and I bet a significant number of these images have made their way into en-wiki, since it is so easy to add a Commons image to an article. Or do you think this page is not the venue to discuss any of that? - Jmabel ! talk03:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Before 1978, if you exhibited a sculpture etc. while taking no steps to prevent further copying (by photography or drawing say) then it was considered published, which a couple rulings implied. Thus, any public sculpture which was installed before 1978 we consider published, so needed notice/renewal etc. But yes, what defined publication of a work which may only exist in one copy was always hard -- the law didn't help at all. Courts defined the moment of publication for movies pretty well, but not a lot of cases on other types of works to get many precedents. en-wiki follows U.S. law only, so that pre-1978 situation should be part of their policy (and I'm sure has come up in actual discussions). It's hard to "mandate positive proof" when judges at the time couldn't always agree on some troublesome aspects. They are correct that privately-sold paintings can be hard to pinpoint a publication point -- but for paintings without copyright notices, publication at any time before 1989 would lose copyright. If a copyright was registered, the publication date would be on it then. Paintings permanently in public spaces would be like public sculpture, but they can be hard to pin down. It's a separate project, and they can have their own policy -- it's probably only an issue on painter articles (and ones on their paintings). There are many other wikis, each with their own policies, and we generally don't have wiki-specific tags. So, I don't see a particular need to do anything special here -- they can enforce that policy, or not, as they see fit. If an artist (or their estate) has a publication claim, they can bring it up in a DR or something -- as always, if we find out more information that brings greater clarity (which such a DR would likely bring) that can change the decisions here. While possible for paintings of note to have remained unpublished all this time, it's really not too likely, and I don't think worth any special effort. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I've no other place to ask. The content in he.wiki under CC-BY-SA-3.0. In he.wiki they want to import or to use content from wikibase site the releasing there content under GFDL 1.2. It seem to be ok as far as I can tell. Actually it means that we are relicensing the content. What do you think? Do you have any additional advice on this matter? -- Geagea (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I am sure there are plenty of users here with more experience than me, but from my limited understanding of the relicensing project, material licensed only under GFDL 1.2 cannot be included in material licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 as GFDL 1.2 is explicit in demanding that derivative works are released under "precisely this license". So I don't think it is clearly okay to incorporate text licensed in this way. Felix QW (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Image with usage restrictions: None
Can I upload an image with "Usage Restrictions: None". If yes, how can I map this to a livense string valid for Commons?
I am not sure that images from this site can be uploaded to Commons. The images hosted on eurekalert are not released under any acceptable license. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Section 7: "You may not download, reprint, reproduce, republish, transmit, or otherwise distribute Website Content or User Submissions in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use, without the prior express written permission from EurekAlert! and AAAS." from their Terms and Conditions https://www.eurekalert.org/termsAndConditions. Looks like you would have to reach out and seek permissions. A vague 'No restrictions' is never enough to assume copyright free use. PascalHD (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Question on URAA and derivative works
File Y is a derivative work (let's say, a translation) of file X. Both X and Y are in public domain in their country of origin. However, while Y is in public domain in US, X is still copyrighted in US as per URAA. Is file Y acceptable in Commons? Teetrition (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Teetrition: Actually no, but for URAA, the proof is reversed. While usually, and specially for recent works, the uploader has to show that the work is in the public domain or under a free license, it is up to the deletion nominator to show that a work is covered by URAA, which could be sometimes tricky. Yann (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Y is not in the public domain in the US; X's copyright will keep any parts of Y that are derivative of X effectively under copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
The archive you linked says it is from the 1940s and that it is still in copyright. What makes you think it is in the public domain? The implication is that this is a US photo but no date of publication is given, so it is unclear which copyright rules may have applied at the time of publication. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Conservapedia's copyright terms seem to at least come very close to meeting the requirements at COM:L. This license clearly doesn't explicitly meet those requirements as it is (sorta?) revocable, and doesn't allow you to mirror the entire website. But the above image (and any other file involving Conservapedia that could conceivably be uploaded to Commons) would never be mirroring the whole site, no matter how anyone would use it, so it would still be "usable for any purpose".
The terms are not acceptable for three reasons. 1. The licence can be revoked at any time, meaning that we could be distributing a licensed image one day and the next be distributing a copyright violation. 2. The licence binds any reusers exclusively to the legal jurisdiction of a single court - we would probably want the WMF legal team to advise on the legal implications before importing the file. 3. We have to indemnify the site owners for any use of the file that produces a liability - this could make us legally liable for anyone who downloads the file from Commons an reuses it in a way that damages the site/site owner. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I have a few more questions regarding AI-generated images:
If an image is generated by AI software, then what is considered its country of origin? Would it be the location of the computer running the application?
I've noticed that some users will replace the uploader's license with {{PD-algorithm}} for AI-generated images (example). Am I correct to assume this would not be valid for AI-generated images that originate from outside the United States?
Commons is only legally required to ensure that works are free in the United States; with only a few exceptions (e.g. COM:URAA), the country of origin does not matter for legality on Commons, and is only a house rule we choose to adopt in order to satisfy some intuitive notion about whether the work is "really" free. Notice how we only talk about country of origin for old works, photos taken in public places (FoP/DM), and simple logos; for each of these, the country of origin is generally easy to ascertain and does feel like an inherent part of the work. In particular, for most modern human-created images we don't care about country of origin, because it is automatically a copyvio if it doesn't have a free license, regardless of what country it is from. In fact, for an image published on the Internet, perhaps by an anonymous user, we often don't know the country of origin, and for AI images I don't think we should care because they don't intuitively feel like they "belong" to any particular country. We set the rules here; we've done it once before with COM:PD-Art, and we can do it again by deciding that all AI images are only required to be free in the United States. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠06:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
However, we should not remove licences, if there may be a copyright in some jurisdiction. Removing the licence then hinders some reusers from using the media. Many files have parallel licences: do you want to use CC-BY-NC or CC-BY-SA? Here you can choose between claiming PD according to {{PD-algorithm}} or falling back to the licence granted by the author (or "author" if you prefer)? –LPfi (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that was my concern. In my linked example, {{Cc-zero}} is actually more permissive than {{PD-algorithm}} because the former allows the work to be used anywhere, even in countries that don't consider AI-generated works to be in public domain. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I definitely think that {{PD-algorithm}} should be edited to take a license parameter in the same way that {{PD-ineligible}} does, and that this should be used consistently. This would be a simple and elegant way to keep track of the additional user licenses. Felix QW (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I think that the usual rules for the country of origin used for instance with old photos generally serve us well: We use the country of first publication.
As Commons servers are in the US, this means that any image whose upload to Commons is first publication would be considered a US work, regardless of where it is uploaded from.
I do think that for those images whose first publication has taken place elsewhere already, we should respect the laws of that place in the same way we respect the laws of the country of origin in general. Felix QW (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
What does "elsewhere" mean though? What happens if a French person uses an AI developed by a German team and uploads it initially to the EU servers of Twitter, an American website? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠01:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Origin of works on the Internet is a mess. There's some argument that a work published on the open Internet is published simultaneously in every country that has access to it. (I assume technical restrictions that required a VPN to get around would mean it wasn't published in that country.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Use of photos in newspaper
When I used non-commercial photos from Wikimedia Commons to accompany my newspaper column on gardening, the editor objected to photos attributed to a "moniker" rather than to photographer's legal name. The editor feels that the photographer's legal name would be necessary for the use of the photograph. This concern, if valid, would limit any use of Wikimedia Commons images, despite the Creative Commons license. How could I persuade the editor that use of a Creative Commons image is legal based on the Creative Commons license, rather than on the photographer's legal name? Tkarwin (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
It might help to link to the user and image that your talking about. It's kind of hard to have an opinion about it without that information though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Here's the specific photo that the editor is concerned about:
I was the photographer in one instance and the author of a book contacted me via Wikimedia Commons e-mail. After checking his credentials, I happily gave him my name and filled in a copyright waiver form. Martinvl (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I'm glad your work will be included in a book.
I haven't seen contact info for photographers of Creative Commons photos. As I understand the Creative Commons license, the photos on Wikimedia Commons are already available for free use, with some limited to non-commercial use. Tkarwin (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
All images on Wikimedia Commons should be available for commercial use as we don't accept non-commercial images. However, we do have a large number of incorrectly licensed images (including copyright violations) and the process of curating or deleting images is an ongoing task. As there is always the risk that the image you want to use has been uploaded without the creator's permission, many professional publications want to reduce their risk of future legal action by contacting the author directly to receive confirmation of permission. This is down to the publisher's own view on managing their legal risk. I think your chances of changing a professional publication's appetite for legal risk is slim, so you will probably have to either contact the creator of that image or find an alternative image the editor will accept. In terms of contacting the creator of the image, please see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
In this case, the image links to the creator's Flickr account. Flickr includes a messaging system, so you can try contacting them through there. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
To begin with, the linked photo is not a "non-commercial photo". It has a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license ({{CC-BY-2.0}}) which allows commercial use.
Commons got this photo from Flickr, where this license was offered. We verified the license at upload time, and the license hasn't changed.
It would strongly appear that at the time someone uploaded the file to Commons, the Flickr-user who took the photo was using the moniker "docentjoyce".the Flickr-user who took the photo used (and still uses) the moniker "docentjoyce" on Flickr, although she also states her real name on her user page. It is entirely reasonable to presume that moniker is an acceptable attribution. It is the attribution we have had on Commons for almost 2 years (with a link to the Flickr account).
I think you did nothing wrong, but for whatever it's worth, in any online version of the newspaper you should probably update the photographer's name to what they currently useprefer (I presume, "Joyce cory"). In the future, if you use a photo from Commons that we sourced from Flickr, and where there is a link to the relevant Flickr account, it is probably better practice to click through on that link to see if they may have changed their name in the interim. (However, in this case even her Flickr user page does not overtly state that preference.) This is particularly true for print media, where corrections are difficult. And, of course, if you want "suspenders and a belt" you can actually send FlickrMail to that user.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that you did what is legally required (though those CC-BY 2.0 licenses that Flickr offers are not as clean as the CC-BY 4.0 licences Commons currently favors), but it would be a courtesy to correct this person's name where you can.
As an internal Commons concern, I'll contact the photographer on Flickr and ask if she wants her name updated everywhere it appears on Commons. She certainly has not made such a request, because it would readily have been granted. - Jmabel ! talk15:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
The Creative Commons attribution requirement is explicitly given as
the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied
.
This does mean that where a work is published with a pseudonym, that pseudonym may not just be given, but should be given in place of the original name where that was not "supplied" with the work. Felix QW (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I believe the idea is that the author is free to choose how they are attributed and exercise that choice by choosing under which designation to publish the work. Felix QW (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@Felix QW: the problem is/was that when we import from Flickr, we typcally end up with just an Flickr account name and a link, regardless of any preference the photographer on Flickr may have about how they are attributed; we just pick up the standardized fields. If the photo later gets used externally without even saying "Flickr user [account name]", and without linking to Flickr -- just the account name with no context -- it's not much of an attribution. (Some of this user's photos, though not the one in question, were handled that way here on Commons, not even a link to their Flickr account). And, in any case, this photographer apparently prefers to be attributed by her actual name.) I have now cleaned up attribution of this photographer's photos on Commons to her satisfaction. - Jmabel ! talk21:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
It looks like a private sector work (not a government document under Crown Copyright) so normal copyright rules apply of contributor's life + x years. If you were looking at a single page, it would be the lifetime + x years of the contributors (writers/illustrators) of that page. However, as this is a PDF with multiple pages, we would need to justify retention against every identifiable contributor. Something published in the 1890s is likely to be okay with life +70 but the closer the issues get to the present day, the more likely it is that a contributor died less than 70 years ago. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
While of course the greater the number of contributors, the higher the risk that one of them is exceptional, I believe we still follow the general rule of {{PD-old-assumed}} here and without evidence to the contrary assume that all pre-1903 editions should be out of copyright in a pma + 70 jurisdiction such as the UK. Felix QW (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
That only works until you identify the date of death of one of the authors being within 70 years of the current date. As I said, issues from the 1890s are likely to be fine. Use of {{PD-old-assumed}} in cases like this is a little weak; the magazine includes named contributors but we have chosen not to try identifying any death dates. Not doing any research into the copyright situation because it would be too much effort for large documents is a bit odd compared to our normal approach to other files with named authors. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes. The 120-year rule of PD-old-assumed works on the theory that it is improbable for an author both to have created valuable works (works that got published or that we care to publish) at a young age and to have lived to a high age: 20/70 will give 50 as will 40/90. As the two are independent, the theory doesn't work when the number of authors involved increases: some of them may have get published at an age of 20 and might still have lived to 90, giving not 50+70=120 but 70+70=140. I think we should add a warning to the template for these cases. –LPfi (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't see why that makes a difference. Each author is another chance to live longer, but the logic still holds for all of them equally. In this case the editor was John Paul (1863-1933)[8], who probably wrote most of it. Not very many credited authors otherwise, from what I can see looking through some of the pages. Any article without an author credit is anonymous and is fine. It is true that if someone can identify an author whose death date is known in there, then it may not be OK, so the chance of that increases with every named person. The biggest problem is letters to the editor, who have named authors, but not sure that should prevent upload. Not sure I would upload any past the 120 year limit, though of course they could be uploaded to English Wikisource up to the U.S. 95 years expiry. The bulk of that is likely fine as anonymous (unless the pattern changed in later years to name article writers) or the work of Mr. Paul. There could be some individual articles or photos that get more problematic for Commons once inside of 120 years, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Photo of the Bayeux Tapestry
Hello, this photo of the Bayeux Tapestry on Flickr says it's Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0). That is not allowed on Commons, but the Tapestry was made in the 11th century. There is a low quality image here. -Artanisen (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I have just found out this part of the rule added by JWilz12345, ironically, on February 25, 2022, two days after the beginning of the full-scale war in UKraine and based on the decision at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Simferopol Railway Station closed by Yann in 2015 with the reason: Crimea is currently using Russian law. Crimea is not the subject of international law, it is occupied territory. Not a single country in the world officially recognized this territory as Russian. How come that Commons is only considering Russian point of view in this case? Since then Russia has also occupied and annexed some more regions of Ukraine - should this decision be applicable to those regions too? The precautionary principle makes us keep in mind possible challenging our decisions in the court. Obviously Russian courts would agree that all these territories belong to Russia and Russian copyright rules must be applied; however, what about Ukrainian courts or courts of any other country? I believe these changes in COM:UKRAINE must be reverted and all affected files must be nominated for deletion again to find if there might be any other reasons for keeping some of them. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I do not think there was a project-wide discussion leading to this conclusion and the change, indeed, must be reverted. Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
While annexation of Crimea isn't recognized by any country, except a few vassals of Russia, Crimea de facto uses Russian law. When different interpretations of the law are possible, I would choose the one most favorable for Commons. In this case, Russia has FoP for some works, while Ukraine doesn't. It would unnecessary restrict photographers in Crimea to upload images of works of art if we deny them the possibility to use FoP in Russian law.
In addition, there is a near unanimous consensus for keeping these files (every one except the nominator). Yann (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I am sympathetic to using the most liberal law available, but I see it as quite bad that an invasion removes the copyright of works in occupied territory. If these are works of Soviet authors, then Ukrainian law is relevant only in principle (what law got to apply post Soviet was more or less random from the authors perspective), or if you are going to visit Ukraine, but if they are works made while Crimea was controlled by independent Ukraine, then declaring the works as PD can be seen as participating in looting by the occupying country. –LPfi (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
OK, that's an valid argument. We can have a decision about this. And I will abide by the consensus. Yann (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
One note -- the country of origin of a building is specifically the country it is located in, not the nationality of the architect or anything like that. So there could be some weird ramifications depending on recognition status. But, when you sue in another country, you sue under that country's laws, and it may only matter based on the extent that country uses the law in the country of origin for the specific case it's presented with. So even if the de facto situation locally has changed, it may not affect that architect's rights elsewhere (or maybe it could, depending on recognition status). The one test case we have from Germany only used Germany's law, so they could still sue there if a photo was marketed in Germany (and the photo was not taken from a public place). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I know we've had some discussions in the past, where some mostly-unrecognized territory passed some copyright rules, whether we follow that de facto law or the mostly-internationally-recognized de jure situation. I think, for better or worse, we landed on using the de facto law since that is the one that would actually affect those users there, at the moment. There are questions like that for Palestine, for example, among others. Some of those nebulous situations can exist for decades, and are always subject to international politics. It's never an easy decision, and I'm not sure we had that same decision made for Crimea in particular. There do seem to be a handful of countries which recognized Crimea as part of Russia in 2014, but most of course don't. When it comes to treatment under the Berne Convention elsewhere, those stances may matter. A situation like FoP is even harder, since there is little precedent over which law is used when an architect sues in another country. It may be only the law of country he sues in, or the law in place in Crimea, or some combination (depending on the law of the other country, and possibly depending on that country's recognition status). Our FoP policy is on the hopeful side that the law of where the building is located can matter. A Crimean architect could not sue locally in Crimea at the moment, though, which is usually what the FoP policy is about. I know there have been discussions about taking a photo from a FoP country across a border to a building in a non-FoP country (I think we landed on where the photo was taken from), and other oddball situations. We do like keeping files, and photos being derivative works of buildings is among our edgier cases to begin with (as they are not a problem in the U.S.). So there is probably some built-in bias to using logic that ends up that way. Given an active war where the situation is even less stable now than before, it may be more of a precautionary principle situation at this point though, so worth a discussion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Crimean architects at the moment might be either Russian or Ukrainian (the share of Crimean intellectuals fled to mainland Ukraine after 2014 is significant). An Ukrainian architect currently in Ukraine can quite easily sue in Ukraine under Ukrainian law; that is what really matters, not the weird fact that Nicaragua legally recognized Crimea as Russian (my fault, one country exists that really did it; all other examples in the list you refer to are just non-binding statements). I am quite reluctant myself when deleting this kind of photographs, and I probably would not be in a hurry with deleting Crimean urban landscapes. However, stating explicitly in our rules that here at Commons we are standing with Nicaragua in recognizing Crimea as Russian seems totally bad idea to me. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Just my two sense, but at the end of the day Commons should be neutral on this, and a big part of being neutral is stating what the actual facts are. To that end, I think there's a huge difference between following the FoP laws of Russia when it comes images of Crimea and recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. Just like saying someone has to do deal with the Ministry of Internal Affairs if they break the law in Crimea isn't be recognizing Crimea as Russian territory. It's a fact that the place isn't being ran by the National Police of Ukraine, at least not that I'm aware of. Personally I'd seriously question the neutrality of the project if it took any kind of position that Crimea was legally under the jurisdiction of the National Police of Ukraine when it clearly isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
A court in Kiev would feel perfectly competent to rule on photographic copying of works in display in Crimea. I don't know that we should be neutral, but certainly acknowledging military control as the final word in legal control is not neutral.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know how exactly they would go about that. Regardless the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Crimea is a local civilian police organization. While true that it is government by the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, it clearly isn't the Russian military. Nor from what I can tell is it being ran by them. It's ridiculous to act like every single in Crimea is de-facto connected to or ran by the Russian military. That's obviously how it works. In no way is it acknowledging Russian military control by saying Crimea has their own legal system outside of Ukraine either. Again, that's just the facts on the ground and we should be able to separate the facts from the question of if Crimea is a recognized part of Russia or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Huh? A court doesn't pick up and go to the scene of a crime. Ever heard of w:Forum shopping? If a Ukrainian sculptor wants to sue a photographer who publishes a photograph in Crimea that violates Ukrainian FoP, they quite likely could sue in Kiev. Russia has no claim on Crimea under international law; it controls Crimea by military force. It's ridiculous to act like a fulmination changes that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure, they "likely" could sue in Kiev, but what are the actual odds of the case going anywhere in Kiev? In the meantime they can 100% sue in a Crimean or Russian court. Are you really going to argue that Crimea has no court system or that the way only for someone to be prosecuted for committing a crime there is there is through the legal system in Kiev? You can go off all day about how they aren't intentionally recognized, but that doesn't negate the fact that Crimea has their own legal system that deals people with who commit crime there. It's not like someone can just shot a person in Sevastopol and be like "Oh well, Crimea isn't internationally recognized as Russian tertiary. So whatever lmao." Their still going to get arrested and prosecuted for it and not by the Ukrainian police force either. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Occupied territories don't have their own legal systems or their ownpolice organizations. The occupants enforce their legal system here, and we know quite well how it works in Crimea under Russian regime, with its 10 and more years imprisonments for local civil activists. But that is not the point. By avoiding copyright violations Commons is not acting out of selfless care about local photographers and uploaders who might be sued for breaching local laws; Commons does so to prevent legal problems for Wikimedia Foundation as a publisher of illegal content. Ukrainian court cannot create a real problem for Crimean photographers staying in Russia controlled territories because its decisions would not be recognized there. But Ukrainian court can quite easily decide against Wikimedia foundation, and this decision would be recognized anywhere but in Russia. Is Wikimedia Foundation located and registered in Russia? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Occupied territories don't have their own police organizations. So the Ministry of Internal Affairs doesn't exist then then? Weird take, but OK. I never claimed Russia doesn't influence their legal system, but that's not what the conversation is about. Same goes for your strawman about the imprisonment of activists. Activists routinely go do jail. Just because the UK arrested Julian Assange at the request of the United States doesn't mean they don't have their own legal system that deals with normal day to day legal affair in the meantime.
More to the point though, you say the Ukrainian court can quite easily decide against Wikimedia foundation. I don't really see that happening in this case though because realistically someone from Crimea isn't going to sue for copyright infringement in Ukraine. They will do it in Crimea or Russia. The only other scenario is that someone from Ukraine sues a person in Crimea for copyright infringement. Which in that case there would be zero way for the Ukrainian court to adjudicate it since they are currently at war and can't go to Crimea to investigate the case or file a subpoena. That only leaves someone from Russia suing someone from Crimea for copyright infringement or visa versa. In either of those cases the court could decide against the defendant. Which matters because media uploaded to Commons has to be usable for any purpose.
The reason for that isn't purely to save the Wikimedia foundation from being sued either. The foundation isn't the one who gets sued if someone creates a commercial product out of images that they got from this website. So you can't just dismiss the possibility of a law suit happening between someone from Crimea and Russia or any other place that recognizes the territories. It's still an issue if someone from Belarus can sue a person in Crimea for copyright infringement and have it go to a Russian or Belarusian court. The fact that it wouldn't be recognized anywhere else except for those countries doesn't really matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Ministry of Internal Affairs of Crimea obviously does exist, as well as such ministries at all other Russian territories. But it is not Crimean own police organization (even somehow “influenced” by Russia, as you weirdly put it), it's a part of Russian legal system headed since 2019 (en.wiki does not reflect it) by some Pavel Karanda born in the Russian city of Omsk and raised to the police officer in the Russian cities of Murmansk and Vologda before being sent to the occupied Crimea in 2016 (see his bio here). As for suing, of course it is not possible for somebody currently residing in Crimea to sue in Ukrainian courts but it is absolutely possible for a copyright holder from Ukraine, whether it is legal entity (like architect company built something in Crimea before 2014) or a person (one of quite many Crimeans fled after 2014 from Russian invasion to Ukraine), to sue about their copyright infringement on the Crimean territory in the Ukrainian court. Ukraine still has a special court for Crimean cases based in the Ukrainian city of Kherson, see uk:Кримський апеляційний суд. And it is quite obvious that the court would have absolutely no need to send an expedition to Crimea in order to figure out if the photograph uploaded to Commons is indeed picturing something that is copyrighted under Ukrainian law. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
it is not Crimean own police organization (even somehow “influenced” by Russia, as you weirdly put it) Usually when you file a copyright claim it's done through a copyright claims board. I doubt just because Pavel Karanda is the Minister of Internal Affairs that it means every random lower court judge or filing clerk are KGB agents or whatever. Pavel Karanda isn't standing on a corner somewhere handing out jaywalking tickets or doing the processing for payments of them. Most of the internal affairs in Crimea are still ran and maintained by Crimean citizens. Most of what they do is perfectly normal, every day, non-political things to. Regardless of if a few key positions at the top happen to be Russian assets. That's why Crimea is only "influenced" by Russia. No one is going to argue Pavel Karanda directly has anything do with copyright claims though. Maybe imprisoning political dissidents, but again that's not what the discussion is about.
Commons is indeed picturing something that is copyrighted under Ukrainian law. I don't think it's an either or thing. It can be both an issue in Ukraine and one in other places. Including Crimea, Russia, Belarus, or any other country that feels like hearing a copyright claim by someone from Crimea. It's not like the only option here is that a former citizen of Crimea who lives in Ukraine will sue another Ukrainian. It's just as likely, if not more, that a current or former citizen of Crimea either sues another Crimean or Russian in a Russian court. It's less likely someone from Belarus sues a Crimean for copyright infringement or visa versa, but not impossible. Personally, if I had it my way I'd have the policy say that the laws of both Ukraine and Russia apply since it really comes do a dice roll of what country the law suit lands in. There's no guarantee it wouldn't be Crimea or Russia though. But in absence of that I agree with Yann that the guideline should fall on Russia's side since it has the more relaxed FOP laws. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
If both Russian and Ukrainian laws might provoke legal consequences for Crimean photographs, the problem would look completely different. However, at the moment the situation is not symmetrical: under Ukrainian law there is copyright infingement and uploaders, reusers and WM might be sued for it; under Russian law there is no copyright infringement and the only thing Russia can sue WM about in Russian court is non-recognizing occupied territories as belonged to Russia (and Russia really does it all the time but it does not look like WM is too terrified). Precautionary principle at Commons is designed to avoid WM being sued, directly or indirectly. There is no other way to follow this principle in this case than respecting Ukrainian laws even if you don't like them. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Under Russian law there is no copyright infringement I'd love to see some evidence of that. I don't think just because it's an occupied territory that there wouldn't be grounds to sue for copyright infringement in Russia. I'm sure they would have some way to deal with such a law suite since occupied territories aren't exactly a new invention or anything and there's been plenty of past legal cases involving them. Otherwise you'd have to argue that we could whole cloth upload images of every single work ever created in Crimea just because they are an occupied territory, which would clearly be ridiculous. In the meantime there's zero way that Ukraine could even litigate a law suite having to do with Crimea. Russia is literally the only country that can.
Precautionary principle at Commons is designed to avoid WM being sued Where exactly do the guidelines say that the precautionary principle only applies to the Wikimedia Foundation not being sued? Also, if that were the case why does Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle explicitly say "Commons' users aim to build and maintain in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed." Who exactly would that be directed to if the only thing that matters was the Wikimedia Foundation not getting sued? The Wikimedia Foundation already knows images on here are suppose to be free or freely-licensed. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure what evidence you want to see, but under Russian law Crimea is an integral and inseparable part of Russia, and not part of Ukraine. Another law established freedom of panorama for buildings in Russia. Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
That's exactly my point. So why wouldn't someone in Crimea sue for copyright infringement in Russia? There's essentially zero reason they would file the claim in Ukraine when Crimea is under Russian law, if they even could file it Ukraine to begin with. I don't think they could even if they wanted to. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
This point of yours is obviosly pointless. Crimea was a part of Ukraine for almost 60 years, first within USSR and then within the independent state. Persons and organizations involved in Crimean architecture were and are located not only in Crimea but also in what is now Ukraine and Russia. Let me give you an example. We have Category:Boris Belozersky. This architect died in 1977 in Ukraine (not in Crimea) after living there for 30 last years of his life. Commons have 32 pictures of his buildings in Crimea, they are in PD upon Russian law but not upon Ukrainian law. Copyright of the architect's heirs is to expire in Ukraine in 2047. What makes you think that these heirs are currently living in Russia and not in Ukraine? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
You can cherry pick a single exmple but it doesn't negate what I said. I never claimed no one whos created a work of architecture in Crimea lives in Ukraine now. There are also people who created architectural works in Crimea who live in Russia, or their families do if they are dead. That's I why said there should really be rules for both countries depending on what the specific case is. It's completely ridiculous to act like no one who created a work of architecture in Crimea lives in Russia though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Those who live in Russia cannot protest or sue about the images of architecture uploaded to Commons, it is legal according to Russian law. That's why mentioning them in this discussion is completely senseless. But those who live in Ukraine can protest and sue according to Ukrainian law, and Commons must take it into consideration. Period. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, well. You still haven't provided any evidence that the only reason we follow copyright laws is so the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't get sued. Until then I'm going to assume people suing each other in Russia matters. Be my guest and provide the evidence I've asked for about it multiple times now though. 10 bucks says you won't. If your can't then I think Russia should be taken into consideration as much as, if not more then, the Ukraine. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Sure, they "likely" could sue in Kiev, but what are the actual odds of the case going anywhere in Kiev? You spit out a bunch of words, but few of them are productive. Did you read the forum shopping article? Roman Polanski, a Pole who would likely be extradited from the UK, sued Vanity Fair, a US magazine, in London because he correctly assumed that he would win the libel trial there. Sculptors with statues in Crimea who want to sue over FoP are going to sue in a Ukrainian court, because that is where they are going to win.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Your the one cherry picking a single court case that has nothing to do with any of the countries involved in this or copyright law and I'm the one making unproductive comments? Right. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Let me tell you that this discussion is already known in Ukrainian community. Any time now some "hot shot" can make "a legal experiment". A court in Kyiv will happily start the proceeding because of the favorable publicity, as the reputation of courts is low in Ukraine. I think it is not in interests of Commons or WMF to have this legal discussion. It is not a threat by any means, I just give you my inner Ukrainian understanding and experience, how the things really are. --Brunei (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
As it seems that my addition of the passages at both FOP-UKRAINE and FOP-RUSSIA pages generated this controversial debate, I will boldly remove/revert my own contributions back. A true consensus not just generated by a single deletion request must be made, thru a discussion that also involves Wikipedians from Russia and Ukraine. JWilz12345(Talk|Contrib's.)16:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense. I think your confusing Wikipedia for Commons though. Commons' users aren't "Wikipedians." At least not that I'm aware of. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
We should have a RFC for this situation, in view of LPfi's comment above. What's important for Commons is what a court would decide in USA where Commons is hosted. Since the USA doesn't recognize annexation of Crimea, law of Ukraine would probably be used. Does any want to start this? Yann (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
IMO, a US court would most likely use the law of the US for any FoP case no matter what, meaning US's fairly minimal FoP.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Image from North Korean TV
This file is captured from en:Korean Central Television, according to the uploader's notation 朝鮮中央テレビ(Japanese word for Korean Central Television). Is it allowed to upload image from North Korean press without getting permission? Don't know whether North Korea has Copyright Act, but though, wondering is this image violating rules of wikimedia commons. And if so, is it OK to delete this image? Geoarchive (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Public domain (for Commons) means the copyright has expired -- the source page says copyright is not evaluated. I don't see a copyright notice on it, though in theory it could have been cropped away. But it would have also needed a renewal, and I don't see any renewals mentioning that name. So, would appear to be {{PD-US-no notice}}, or at the worst {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Government website
=
I'm trying to upload pictures of Oregon Government officials from the official government website, but am not sure if it is okay to upload. For one example, I have this page that I want to upload the picture from here but I'm not sure if its completely fine. Masohpotato (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Masohpotato (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
In the United States, works of the federal government are in the public domain, but the same doesn't necessarily go for the works of U.S. states. The vast majority of U.S. States, including Oregon, do not automatically release all of their works into the public domain. As such, we can't presume that the photos are public domain based on the fact that the U.S. State of Oregon has put them on their website, and we can't upload those photos at this time.
On a related note, it might be worth reaching out to the Office of Ben Bowman to inquire about seeing if they would be willing to release the photo into the public domain. There's a good chance that the state legislature would be the copyright holder of that photo (if, for example, legislative staff took the photo as a part of their official job duties). We've had a U.S. state previously agree to release their legislature's official portraits under a suitable free license before (we have permission from Iowa's general assembly to use the photos on their website in a manner consistent with the terms described in {{Iowa General Assembly official portrait permission}}), so it might be worth seeing if we can make it happen again. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright of The Honolulu Advertiser from 1977 to 1989
Are images from The Honolulu Advertiser from 1978 to 1989 copyrighted? The UPenn copyright page states that "no issue renewals found in CCE or registered works database" and that "no contribution renewals found in CCE or registered works database," but I just want to be sure that I'm reading into this correctly.
@Reppop: I checked those issues on Newspapers.com and found no copyright notice on the 1977 and 1979 issues. And there are no issues registered in the copyright database before 1992. So those should be golden. By 1985, they did add a copyright notice in the masthead, so that one is a no-go. Toohool (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Man, I should have checked more thoroughly. I'll have to remove the '85 ones that I uploaded. Thanks for checking for me. If you don't mind, could you check if I uploaded this correctly and that I'm reading into the copyright correctly? (File:Kamasami Kong, 1980.jpg) Thanks. reppoptalk20:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Reppop: That one looks fine but I would change the license template to the more specific {{PD-US-1978-89 advertisement}}. That issue has a copyright notice on the front page, but third-party advertisements generally had to have their own copyright notice, so you're good. Toohool (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
So U.S. law. I suspect that is just a little too complicated for U.S. threshold, but someone more expert should speak up if they think I'm wrong. - Jmabel ! talk18:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
u-Bahn Station Museumsinsel Berlin
Is the U-Bahn Station Museumsinsel FoPgermany? I thought the architekture has TOO, and it is inside a building. But the example foto is a QI assessed image. Does this mean I can make an publish similar fotos of the u-bahn-station? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Copyright of Brazilian government works
Presently, {{PD-Brazil-Gov/en}} contains a third line that states It is a work whose authors' rights belong to the Brazilian government (federal, state, or municipal), for which the economic rights shall be protected for a period of 70 years from the first of January of the year following that of their disclosure or that of the author's demise, whichever is later. ([12]). I had figured that this was a result of a very literal translation from Portuguese, but this line is absent entirely from the Portuguese ({{PD-Brazil-Gov/pt}}) version of the same template. The relevant text at the link is Portanto, desde o início da vigência da Lei 9.610/98, aplica-se às obras cuja titularidade pertence à Administração Pública a proteção geral prevista na norma, ou seja, de 70 anos contatos a partir de 1º de janeiro ao ano subsequente da morte do autor ou da publicação da obra, conforme o caso, which I understand to mean Life + 70 for human authors whose rights have been transferred to the government or publication + 70 for government works.
I'm not confident enough in my Portuguese to catch all nuances here, but do I have this correct? And, if so, should we change the template to more clearly reflect this? — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
South Korean Threshold of Oiginality
Can someone tell me if the icons in the category PNG GRAC content descriptor icons falls below the Korean threshold of originality? Trade (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
In this deletion request debate, concerning a 1967 photo of A.M. Cassandre at the opening of the exhibition of his work next to one of his poster designs, the following bold statement was made by @Rosenzweig: :
"...the Dutch National Archive may have released the Anefo press photo as such with a CC0 license tag, but that does not include the painting that is shown"
When I tried to confront him with this bold statement, an unfounded accusation in itself according to me, he waved my concern away with the words:
"... I do not have any proof or evidence that the painting's copyright is not included in the CC0 license tag. I do not need to, because the onus (COM:ONUS) to show that."
In other words, I can accused anyone I want, frame the copyright however I want... because the prove is on the uploader. However, in my opinion there are two things here: The uploader needs to assure the copyright conditions are right. And all participants at the discussion need to keep assuming good faith.
Now I have taken this particular case just as an example. I have participated in similar discussions for at least the last three years, maybe even over a decade now. In all those years I find myself again and again in shock with the boldness of these particular kind of copyright-violation allegation claims. It seems to me there is a massive -assuming good faith-violation here.
Now I have been in a similar situation as the Dutch National Archive with DR's of some of my own works, where I felt bullied to the max. Now first, in all of the DR's I have been involved in, these where only a small part, so I do believe that copyright regulation on Commons works fine. Also secondly, in no way I want to duplicate that particular DR or it's outcome. What I am wondering is, if we could outlaw this kind of practice of copyright framing? Banned this kind of hard-system-approach, and demand a softer approach?
Maybe one more thing: I did ask this question on the Dutch Wikipedia late last year, where they were not happy the least. They told me this was a problem that concerned Wikimedia Commons only, of which I still disagree. Most of the situations started and played out on Wikipedia itself and else where. I hope by sharing my concerns here, anybody can share some light on this sensitive subject. -- Mdd (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I'm a bit puzzled by your remark. What do you mean by that? COM:DM Netherlands isn't drastically different from other de minimis standards. In this particular case, the poster we see in the photo is not there by chance (it's there on purpose because it is an exhibition of the artist's work) and it is also not a small part of the photo. Quite on the contrary, the poster is the main part of the photo. Regards --Rosenzweigτ17:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Mdd, I do not think Rosenzweig intended to bully you in any way. These images were mass uploaded, which is an excellent job done in this case by Mr.Nostalgic. On second thought, it appears that some of these photos contain (substantial parts of) copyrighted works, which was not identified originally. I think we agree on this . These images are consequently nominated for deletion.
If you want this to be done with a "softer approach", what exactly do you mean? Do you think the wording of the nominations should be more friendly? I think if you can write a proposal what to do about it, we can have a fruitful discussion. In addition, I personally think we should keep Commons "clean" from copyright violations. This is a tremendous effort for us all. And I suppose you are aware of the Dutch saying, Zachte heelmeesters maken stinkende wonden. . It is a severe risk for Commons if we do not act properly against copyvio's.
Well, I hope you can find the time to make a proposal, because I agree it can be hard, especially for newcomers, if their uploads are nominated for deletion or directly deleted. Kind regards, Ellywa (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Ellywa: , first my apologies to Rosenzweig if my comment made that impression. I was actually talking about DR's years ago, concerning some of my own work. Although his recent comment seems rather hears to a Wikipedian with the same Vanguard Editor level of service, and years of operating as moderator as well:
@Mdd: You clearly do not know much about Wikimedia Commons. We routinely delete photos provided by archives if those photos show protected works of art... Rosenzweig τ 18:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
On second thought he might have a point: With maybe over 50.000 DR's a year, Wikimedia Commons runs an unimaginable global open public copyright court. And indeed the way copyright violations are framed, and images deleted on autopilot has been long beyond my comprehension.
The argument however "We routinely delete photos provided by archives..." should mention, that non of these archives are here to defend themselves against these open court copyright-violation allegations. If nobody else does, these works gets automatically removed (such as the series Ellywa nominatied of the Stadsarchief van Amsterdam, see here).
Now about any solution. Carl Lindberg made a point that "we usually need to find some theory under copyright law which would make it OK..." However in my opinion this topic is no just copyright law, but also establishing and maintaining fair conditions for cooperation. I think in many discussions so far many participants got good points, but we are as the Blind men and an elephant: The elephant being copyright governance on the Wikipedia projects. A organizational development project could be set in motion a move towards a "softer approach", which in system theory means a more open approach towards the stakeholders.
Small steps can be taken right now to begin with for example dived the DR's by origin. Stop deletion works from professional archives on autopilot. Set separate standards for these cases. Discuss such standards with the stakeholders. Get a clearer picture of the urgency or often the leak of urgency... etc. -- Mdd (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mdd: You seem to be mischaracterising some of our processes here, which suggests you may not fully understand what we are doing (or it may be an unfortunate choice of wording causing me to misunderstand your point). We don't delete any images on "autopilot." There are certain criteria for speedy deletion where images with specific issues are nominated and then deleted if an administrator is satisfied that the criteria apply. These criteria are for obvious cases, such as clear copyright violations. Any case that isn't clear or where the criteria don't apply at all are taken to a deletion discussion. Deletion discussions allow the whole community to voice their opinions, cite policy, present evidence and then an administrator reviews the case before making a decision. None of these processes are automatic and we do not operate on "autopilot." You seem to be suggesting that we grant archives an automatic level of trust simply because they are archives. However, that argument fails to consider that all archives include a certain number of errors in their records; the larger the archive is, the more likely it is to contain errors. These errors could be the result of a typographical/input error by an archivist, misidentification of a record, conflation of two similar subjects or any number of other errors common to large datasets. For the sake of argument, let us assume that an archive has a 5% error rate; for every 100 records, 5 will include some sort of error. If an archive has 1 million images, we can assume that 50 thousand of those images (5%) include some sort of error. Your proposal that we take a "softer" approach means we will be less likely to scrutinise imported images and make it harder to catch those 5% with errors. You seem to be taking offence at our reviewing cases imported from archives and say that the archives must be given an opportunity to "defend" themselves. Identifying an error in an external archive is not some dishonourable stain on that archive; all large datasets have errors. Similarly, most professsional archives will conduct similar due dilligence checks on data they import from another archive.
Another point you don't seem to grasp is that archives (including our own) often operate with a level of legal risk; records that are clearly legal are kept, records that are clearly illegal are deleted and records that fall into the grey area must be risk assessed and a decision made on how to deal with them. Some archives will be risk averse and not accept images/records unless they are demonstrably legal. Other archives are more willing to take risks and will include images where they only believe that copyright restrictions don't apply. Just as with any other archive, Wikimedia Commons must make those risk-based decisions and decide which files to retain; clear copyright violations are speedily deleted, clearly legal filese are retained and those in the grey area are taken to a deletion discussion to gain community input. The consensus of the Commons community has left us with the precautionary principle, which we must follow until an alternative consensus is formed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @From Hill To Shore: for this summary, with different arguments which I have heard and discussed before in recent years. Now you have stipulated, what I call, an organizational approach / assessment. I am all aware of these concerns and the need to address them. I disagree on the way to continue: I think we should not continue, more ore less sentencing tons of people as copyright violators, but scale down this part of our operation because of the excessive misunderstandings it keeps initiating.
I believe one of the main problems in all of our performance is the unbelievable form of self-denial, the lack of self control. There is the self-denial that Wikipedia itself has become an enormous power... and brings rumors into the world which might be or might not be similar to the tweet that recently brought Credit Swiss down. It is playing an important role in public appearances of artists, companies, governments, etc.
Apart from these issues there is the situation that for years artists are being discriminated and even gaslighted to diminish their participation. In this matter I have seen that copyright violation were mis-used as argument to get their way. These were events of false copyright-framing. Yet, just as risk assessment, there is the big risk of being overrun by those companies and artists, who wants to promote their work above all using the same practices.
Now it is is late in the Netherlands and this is just a sneak preview of my thought on your comment. I haven't got the energy or time to get into this some more. But this is a direction I am thinking of. The practice or maybe better the malpractice of copyright-framing and it's impact is something which deserves our attention. Maybe one last thing, if this is such a Wiki copyright wisdom, why is it still online. In the real world such decision making makes little sense, and Wikipedia is the real world nowadays, and it makes little sense... in these specific matters we are talking about here!? -- Mdd (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC) / 08:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mdd: Perhaps I'm missing something -- my Dutch is basically German with a throat condition -- but I see nothing on the archief.amsterdam site saying that the image you just linked is free of possible copyright issues. The museum may well have the right to post that image without that meaning anyone else does. - Jmabel ! talk02:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up, @Jmabel: , which reminds me of two things. First, the one series of the Stadsarchief van Amsterdam nominated, see here and further, was deleted by @Materialscientist: , who didn't even seem to have taken this into account one way or another. Second, I traced back the four files that @Rosenzweig: mentioned here, and found three out of four ([13]; [14]; [15]) and couldn't find, how this even works.
Now the Stadsarchief van Amsterdam is an archive, and not a museum. The releases of most Dutch archives is still a work in progress, concerning their ways of releasing their works. There are all kinds of peculiar ins and outs here. And there have been some long discussions about these kind of practices. Now, there are indeed at the moment a lot of those images (where the archive has the right to post that image without that meaning anyone else does) at the Stadsarchief Amsterdam, and those you cann't download. -- Mdd (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Back to the initial DR
This situation is difficult. They do appear to be derivative works. They are not de minimis, and they are not incidental either (i.e. unavoidable when photographing a larger subject) since the photographer is intentionally including the work in the photo for effect. Such photos are usually fine for editorial use, and would qualify for U.S. fair use in many situations, when discussing the artist and their work. Just not sure it's all situations, which would be a problem here. We usually need to find some theory under copyright law which would make it OK. Could the fact that the artist clearly posed for the picture mean there is an implied license to the photographer to take it? Quite possibly. In Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc. the judge goes into implied licenses (in that case using it to avoid directly determining a derivative work question, though strongly implies it would have been "incidental" and not derivative). It does seem as though implied licenses can be limited in scope, though usually required the underlying author to make that clear. It's definitely a gray area to get into, and this photo wouldn't be subject to U.S. law on that subject either. I doubt in most cases the artist would ever sue over such a photo, since it helps their own promotion, but that's not quite the same thing as "free". But it also means there are likely no copyright cases where a judge had to decide such a matter. Without some clear precedents, it can be hard to confidently state the copyright situation one way or the other. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Clindberg: for this fair assessment, yet it feels unconformable to me. It is not that I want to be right, but I am missing something. I studied an similar comment of yours on the subject of copyright on design in the Netherlands, which gave me the same feeling. Your outcome was also kind of undetermined, and then it was ruled by a moderator that works of design are under copyright, due to his interpretation of one or two recent lawsuits mainly about model protection (modelbescherming). As an professional designer it went against everything I learned over the years, but I couldn't get my head around it earlier. Now first i like to characterize the existence of the different possible approaches here in four bullet points:
First back to Clinberg's comment. Now a little wiser, I hope, it struck me that you took a very limited basis of events in the base to assess. If I may summarize: The situation that an unknown photographer took a picture of the artist and one of his work in a undetermined place and time, with the artist posing. It is compared to one court case, and an assessment what could happen. The fact that there are no copyright cases means there are no precedents. I would like to call this a hard systems (thinking) assessment, because it isolates the event of the photo shot to the photographer and the artist posing for his work.
Now I have had some DR discussions before about some similar cases, that there are all kinds of circumstances that involve the copyright status. I have brought some forward in the current DR and will not repeat those here. You could say that I argued that the surroundings should be taken into account as well, and this could be called a open systems assessment or a soft-systems assessment. Now in that previous discussion I wondered which approach the moderator should take. It seemed like a choice, a free choice.
Now in this discussion and in the current DR, my own capacity and state of mind has been questioned, and that is also something to take into consideration. More theoretical in critical systems thinking this is even one of the most basic consideration: the thinking process of the observer(s) should be taken into account as well. So all this questioning the observer involved could be called a critical (systems) assessment. in line with this approach the Blind men and an elephant parable could suggest, where are all on unfamiliar grounds here.
Now if we take the comment by @From Hill To Shore: for example. This comment brings up some (critical) assessments of presumably limited experience. The comment continues with explaining the procedures of archives and our own, the risk-assessment we have to make. And doing so he brings up, what I would like to call here, an organizational assessment.
Now the common nominator in these assessments is, that it all focuses on the copyright-control of our own organization. There is hardly any words about the stakeholders we are working with: the professional artists, designers, architects, photographers, archives, etc. Professional content suppliers, which are nailed to the cross as copyright violators, while there there is often a matter of different approaches. To explain: With a hard systems assessment any moderator, even me, would decide to delete. Taken the common law and common practice into consideration, with an open systems approach so to say, I would personally never just delete.
Now please don't get me wrong, I don't want to outlaw such hard systems ruling: The problem I am having is that copyright is used as "the real argument", while it is actually about risk-reduction. We should be frank about that. Admit we are sorry we cannot host some works of artists, because we can not take the risk. The argument that moderators act on the behalf of contemporary artists or their heirs is a big scam... in these particular cases I speak about here. What I would like to do is talk to some of those stakeholders. For example, older press agencies. How do they feel, that their photographers are framed as copyright violators, etc.
Actually to jump to conclusion, I think with those works of contemporary art, we cannot take the risk in two directions. We can be sued for providing copyright infringement remedies... and we could be suet for defamatory allegations. I think we should simply change our modus operandi, stop offering commercial interesting stuff for free. Create the conditions that those works can be used locally for illustration purposes, etc. -- Mdd (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Just an FYI, there's a similar DR involving Mdd here. In that case the artist of the stained glass windows in the images that I nominated for deletion died in 1970. So the windows are clearly still copyrighted. Except Mdd and another user spent multiple months arguing that they are free of copyright because the museum where they are located allows people to take pictures of the art they have on exhibit, which is clearly spurious. They then continued that line of reasoning even after someone from the museum and a lawyer that they contact both gave unclear answers about the copyright status of the windows. Mdd in particular ignored my counter arguments, except to repeatedly say that we should just trust that the museum wouldn't allow people to take pictures of the windows if they were copyrighted. From that and my reading of this discussion it seems like the "framing" he wants us to take in DRs means acting like institutions are above making mistakes, scrutiny, and that every image of work taken by, in, or related to a museum should just accepted as free of copyright without question. Regardless of when the artist died or what actual evidence we have of the copyright status of the work. "Because museum" or some nonsense.
Honestly, I'm not really sure what he's arguing, but that's what it seems to come down to. "The work must free of copyright because it's in a museum and museums are above reproach" or something. To quote Mdd from the DR "I think it is naïve to think a third party should have to answer any of those questions to us, or to any other external party. Every organization has it's own copyright policy, and we are not the copyright police to audit their policy." That's clearly an untenable way to do things. 100% third parties (or at least users who upload works on their behalf) should answer what the copyright status of a work featured an image they upload is. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, not all museums and institutes are aware <added later>of all details</added later> of copyright law. And mistakes are made, as we all do. In mass uploads from NL from trusted sources, violations are sometimes found. I will look into the stained glass. We have also this File:SintJanskerkGouda-Glas1c-Erasmus.jpgEllywa (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Your statement @Ellywa: , not all museums and institutes are aware of copyright law, makes me again wonder if you ever took a law class or business class in your physics studies at the University or later on? On what kind of planet are you on? -- Mdd (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I will not go into a discussion any further with you on this subject. What you are writing now is totally out of context and comes close to personal attack and doxing. Ellywa (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
As a side to that, you should't have edited Ellywa's message. It's really bad practice. As well as IMO just not being a good look on you in general. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I think there was an edit-conflict here, which normally turns up automatically and would have blocked my latest contribution. I don't understand what happened but that was unintentional. Sorry for that. -- Mdd (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Just now I saw this edit, adding <added later>of all details</added later>, which was added after that 09:58u sneer, yet she didn't and still has not undersigned a second time, which would explain the situation to outsiders. -- Mdd (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Weird. I've never seen it do that before. Like you say usually it will just block the edit conflict from posting. No harm no foul I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
It may be my old computer running Chrome. When I upload a new version of the image, I have to delete my cache memory first to see the result. Now a later contribution of mine was indeed blocked just now as usual. I also (almost) never seen that happen, but with images always. -- Mdd (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
In the Netherlands or anywhere else, any business in the cultural industry is out of business in no time if they really start to serious commercially exploit intellectual property of others still under copyright without permission. Also the professional artists themselves are not a bunch of mindless sheeps, who need any kind of protection. If any professional artist is being made aware of any real copyright violation, it is their professional pride, task and obligation to let this know, to take action themselves. -- Mdd (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC) / 14:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
In response to the comment I will not go into a discussion any further with you on this subject..., I am sorry to. The reality here on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is, that maybe tons of museums and institutes are confronted on Wikipedia with copyright issues, which they were not aware of...!? -- Mdd (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it's less that they don't know about the copyright issues and more that they just don't care about them. I know at least in the United States that most GLAM organization are very hands off when it comes to following copyright law because their main concern is preservation and public access, which the law just gets in the way of. Commons has different goals and purposes though. To the point that they aren't even comparable. This isn't a museum or place to preserve cultural artifacts purely for their sake. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. I think the statement organization are very hands off when it comes to following copyright law is just one interpretation, one way of looking at it. In my earlier comment under #Back to the initial DR I have tried to introduce and extra framework to upgrade this kind of conversations here on Commons.
It is my understanding, that on Commons the hard systems copyright assessment is the dominant one, and in the traditional cultural industry there is a softer open systems copyright assessment dominant.
So if you would say "organization are very hands off when it comes to following copyright law in a hard systems copyright assessment way," I could possibly relate to that, being a fair assessment, yet with a totally different impact. -- Mdd (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, in the U.S., dealing with library collections, and taking advantage of the quirk in U.S. copyright law that makes publication date more important than in the rest of the world, we usually confine ourselves to their pre-1928 material (> 95 years) plus other material where a public-domain rationale is very clear. Those archives are usually chock full of more recent images whose copyright status is, frankly, very difficult to determine. The libraries could doubtless make a successful "fair use" defense on all of it, but Commons specifically does not host images on a "fair use" basis. - Jmabel ! talk15:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mdd: Look into the law suite between book publishers and the Internet Archive in relation to their online book lending system. In that case the Internet Archive was pretty clear from the onset that they were going to temporarily disregard copyright law by lending out books to multiple people at the same time due to the pandemic. I wouldn't call that a open systems copyright assessment. Same goes for Jmabel's example of archives that are chock full of more recent images. There's plenty of websites for University archives out there with terms of services that make it clear they don't guarantee the images on their sites are free of copyright. In those cases there has been no assessment of copyright what-so-ever. Let alone has there been an open systems copyright assessment. Whatever that means.
I will say that in theory we could be a little less deletion by putting more effort into identifying and documenting the origins of images. I've spent a lot of time on that myself and I'm sure it's saved some images from unnecessarily being deleted, but I don't see it happening on any kind of meaningful scale since it's not one of the projects goals. Not to mention it could just as easily lead to more images being deleted if we find out who the authors are. But that's one possible way to be more inclusionary. I don't think the project will ever just host blatantly copyrighted material though. Nor should it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Jmabel: . In the Netherlands some larger archives have donated up to maybe 3 million images or more from scans and photo's of older paintings and illustrations to photo's from the 20th century until the 1990s and even from more recent. Most of those images come from collections and photo-shoots with all specific conditions. Locations of lots of those photo shoots are known with the specific conditions regarding photography, and in the Netherlands we have a traditions of cooperation.
From what I understood, we have had our Europeana drama, that in the early 2000s cultural institutes uploaded a few millions of photo's of recent art works under free licenses. But this has long been set right, and every respectable institute is well aware of this situation, so I heard. I do have spoken to some of those archives in the past years in the Netherlands, and they are well aware here. Pictures of modern art of living artists sets of all the alarm bells, so assessment is serious. There are not that much pictures of modern art and artists left there. -- Mdd (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Hereby I want to thank everybody for their insides and opinions, and will let it rest to consider my next move. I once more want to stipulate, that I have been talking about a very small part of all deletion requests handled : works of artists and photographers by name, sometimes working for an agency, who took pictures in prearranged scenery, being assessed and licences by professional organizations, being published online for many years, and/or never questioned by artists and their heirs of the artists and/or their work depicted in the photographs. Ruling out those works as copyright-violations implicitly suggest one or more of the professional participants involved in the release of the photo's is being implicated in a sort of theft of intellectual property, a true crime, or at least that may feel that way, and as such can have a pretty shocking experience. Those professional organizations and professionals can take this as damaging of good name/defamation of character (Schendingen van de eer en goede naam) which brings out a certain risk for Wikipedia for demands for compensation, which can be sever. This especially can be the case if there is no proper procedure, protection of whatever other conditions professional organizations may expect from such content providers operating on out in the open on such a global scale. If it was up to me, Wikimedia should stop using these legal and quasi terms, reasoning, and judging, and make it a quality assurance provision instead. No more ruling out contributions as copyright violation, name it a misunderstanding, misconception or whatever, a to high a risk. These are the things I have been thinking about, among others as some pro-deo assistance for new comers, etc, etc. Getting back to the basic and build a better understanding of the different types of approaches possible, use models, and visualization. Be kind always, assume good faith, peace and understanding an so forth. Again thank you all. -- Mdd (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC) / Mdd (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
US Government public domain images courtesy of a third party
A1Cafel has been nominating for deletion US Government images provided to the government by a third party (courtesy) that were marked by the government as public domain. Examples include Diplomatic Security Service, Department of Defense and EPA. Copyright doesn't apply to a “work of the United States Government” which is defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101 as "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". A1Cafel claims that the images are not a work of the US Government therefore the PD license is invalid. 17 U.S.C. § 101 says "prepared" not taken and the images would have been released to the government by the third party. Are the PD licenses valid for third party images "photo courtesy" or "courtesy of"? Melbguy05 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Melbguy05: No, third-party works don't enter the public domain simply because a federal agency publishes them. In fact, even photos taken by federal employees and related to their activities can be copyrighted if they were not taking the photo as part of their job. - Jmabel ! talk23:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Images are marked that they are in the public domain. For example, on the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service (DVIDS) website this image courtesy of the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN). Its use "must comply with the restrictions shown on https://www.dvidshub.net/about/copyright". DVIDS says that some images "may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property rights owned by non-DoD parties" regardless of markings and mentions use "expressly authorized in this notice". The RNZN would have released the image to the US knowing it was to be published. DVIDS usually says "Photo courtesy" in this case has "Royal New Zealand Navy Photo". Melbguy05 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
It's possible that certain particular works are PD on the basis described by Melbguy05. It's also possible that a U.S. government agency inadvertently published copyrighted work. (It certainly has happened in the past.) In your example, they do seem pretty clear about saying the image is PD; I'd be a lot more reassured to see that statement on a website or page controlled by RNZN. Do notice, there is (at best) some trickiness here. The RNZN photo would be copyrighted at creation. I'm not at all sure that copyright can simply be abrogated. They could do something like a CC-0 dedication, which is close to putting something in the public domain, but still doesn't actually make the image PD. It's tricky, and I'm no expert. (And I'd love to have one of the more expert people here weigh in.)
Also, for File:Boston Field Office Royal Protective Detail (52553699690) (1).jpg, for example, I'd be very suspicious. Associated Press is not in the habit of releasing their photos into the public domain. I'd strongly suspect someone at DoD got it wrong. If I were publishing a book and wanted to use that photo, I would certainly at least get hold of AP to verify. I don't think we are doing anyone a favor by saying it's in the public domain and effectively advising them not to worry, just on the basis that someone in a government job posted it to a Flickr stream and marked it PD. Probably they are usually uploading mainly PD material, and they have their account set to PD by default. There is a fair chance they just didn't think about this being an exception. - Jmabel ! talk02:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
It is surprising that Associated Press, a commercial organization, would make an agreement with the Diplomatic Security Service for their image to be available in the PD. CENDI has two documents on US Goverment works CENDI 2016-1 and CENDI/2008-1 that discuss non-governmental authors. Melbguy05 (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
It would, probably too surprising. The "license" at the Flickr page is not truly a license, just a declaration that the work is already in the public domain. If the work is actually authored by the account owner, then we accept it as a form of PD-author, but for a work which comes from another source we don't accept it unless we can figure out how it became PD some other way (by being old enough, or that sort of thing). Most likely, this is the "don't accept it" case. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
For designated U.S. government Flickr accounts, they can only mark their uploads as PD. It is not possible for them to choose any other license. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Technically, PD-USGov is only for works created by US government employees -- it's more or less the same thing as a work for hire when the federal government is the employer. In some situations, when someone gives a photo to be used in a PD-USGov setting, they know they are basically allowing to become public domain. However, the terms at https://www.dvidshub.net/about/copyright seem fairly explicit that they acknowledge that some photos come from other sources, and those photos must follow any copyright attached -- i.e. the only works there which are public domain there are the ones actually done by US government employees. The "courtesy of" in that case is a big hint that the photo comes from a third party. Flickr can be harder -- but if it comes from a third party, technically, the account owner has no right to put a license on the work. If the third party agreed to the license, fine, but it can be hard for us to tell if they did, or the account owner instead simply forgot about the account's default license when the posted the photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a link to it right now, but there was an image I nominated for deletion a few weeks ago of some presidents wife that was uploaded from some government agencies website as being PD because it was supposedly created by a US government employee. Although the photograph was actually taken by a private photography studio and apparently the government agency had changed it's copyright status from public domain to unknown a few years ago. So it's not like they don't make mistakes sometimes. Probably they just collect whatever photographs pertain to a certain politician or event at the time and then sort through the documents later as needed. It's not like they can determine exactly where every single photograph came from or who it was produced by the second someone leaves office. Even with past politicians or events a lot of this stuff is badly documented because it has been sitting in random boxes in basements for years and is just now being sorted through or uploaded to the internet. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I hadn't looked at that one, just the ones linked earlier, but that would seem to be a situation of a third-party copyright where copies were given to the White House, so they were in presidential records, but it was incorrectly marked as public domain at NARA. Given the copyright notice, it will be under copyright until 2069 so we would need a license from the photography company -- it is not PD-USGov. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
According to CENDI which supports Carl Lindberg comments above, "the fact that a privately created work is, with permission, included in a U.S. Government work does not place the private work into the public domain. The user is responsible for determining whether a work is in the public domain". That "works of the U.S. Government may incorporate works by non-governmental authors. In such cases these entities may own copyright, which may be represented by having a copyright notice included in such information. Digitizers should use caution in reproducing or disseminating such material". CENDI says that since 1989 there is no requirement for a copyright notice and recommends that government websites should add a copyright notice as "it is helpful to potential users of the material to identify any rights the Government may or may not have in the work". So without a notice included explaining how a "photo courtesy" or "courtesy of" is in the PD it should be treated as PD not applying to the image. In the case of DVIDS as suggested by Jmabel above, if maybe worthwhile to check the copyright or licensing of images by the foreign military that provided the image. Melbguy05 (talk) 05:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
We have an image of the art installation Fallen Star that is marked as non-free on the English Wikipedia. However, the installation is part of a building on the UCSD campus, and this article indicates people can actually go inside. Would freedom of panorama apply in this case? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe that affects copyrights. If you take a picture where it's not allowed, then you would have broken "house rules," but you would still own the rights to the photo. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Looks like a building to me: "humanly habitable structures that are intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings, and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including but not limited to churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠23:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
If something like File:Fallen Star from Geisel Library.jpg were taken with a telephoto lens that focused on the building, that would be fine as it's an architectural work (even gargoyles are OK to photograph per COM:FOP USA). That being said, if UCSD generally prohibits photography, one may have a harder time being permitted physical access to the façade with a high-quality camera. The photographer would still own the copyright to the photo unless they were to sign them away. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Can anyone more experienced with copyright stuff review the photographs in the page Franz Kafka and possibly make a deletion request of some of these? I see two problems:
1) A lot of these images are marked as {{PD-anon-70-EU}} but the book sourced Franz Kafka: pictures of a life (you can borrow the book on archive.org) just doesn't credit any author for any photograph at all. The fact that there are dozens of photographs with no author information implies that it was the book that didn't credit the authors and not that all the photographers are anonymous. Commons:Anonymous works seem to be in favor of the notion that not credited ≠ anonymous.
2) The book was published in 1984 in the United States and registered in the United States Copyright Office in 1985. There it says photos were previously registered. Wouldn't that fall under Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States > "From 1978 to March 1, 1989: pre-1978 creation with notice, or without notice but registered within 5 years of first publication" > "If author is unknown or corporate authorship, the earlier of 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, but not earlier than Dec 31, 2047" if it isn't possible to prove it was published earlier?
I thought of starting the deletion requests myself but I'm no expert on the specificities of copyright laws and Wikimedia Commons guidelines and maybe these images are actually okay, so I prefer to leave it to someone else more experienced to handle. ItEchoesToEternity (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
If the photographers cannot be identified now, the photos will still be anonymous. That the photos had been previously registered does not mean that they were registered after 1978. They are very old after all. Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the copyright status of the photos should be evaluated one by one. The linked record says "Imprint: Berlin c. 1983", "Date of Publication: 1983-06-09" and "Preexisting material: photos, ill., [...]". First publication may have been early, in Europe, so I suppose the registration is irrelevant for them after URAA. It seems the book credits its sources, which vary from one photo to the next. Some photos are credited to Ackerman Antiquariat, Deutsches Literaturarchiv or Schocken Books. Wouldn't it be sensible to assume those images were published in earlier books. Then there are a number of archives, especially Klaus Wagenbach Archiv; do photos available in an archive count as published? Some of the archives probably have records on the author of some of the photos. If the author was attributed in the previous books or in the archive records, then they certainly aren't anonymous (unless perhaps the author was not credited until 70 years after publication). Many of them are probably {{PD-old-auto-1996}} or {{PD-old-assumed}}, but for the newer ones, we cannot just assume they were anonymous and first published in some specific time span. Photos from private archives may have been published late but in the 70 years pma span before 1996. I don't know what European jurisdiction(s) should be used for the photos. –LPfi (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Can I upload an image to Commons that is linked from a Wikipedia page?
I'm editing a page on Wikipedia about Crayola's Color Wonder line of products. The page has an external link to an image of one of the products. I'm not sure about the image's copyright licence, but since it's been indirectly used on the page already, am I allowed to upload the image to Commons and use it on the Wikipedia page? (I'm a new user to both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, so sorry in advance if my question is inappropriate.) Quadruple Tilde (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Linking to content on the net is no copyright violation – you are not making nor distributing copies. The link seems to go to product packaging, which probably reaches the threshold of copyright (the utilitarian aspect is secondary to the design). Thus the images cannot be uploaded here on Commons without an explicit licence by the copyright owners. On Wikipedia, such an image could be used as "fair use", just check the specific rules on fair use on the Wikipedia you are editing (Wikipedia in English? if so, see en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria). However, I don't see the linkedimages add much to the article. They show nothing but packaging, which could be for any children's product. –LPfi (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm looking at this Flickr account. The account posts a lot of images (that appear to be self-drawn) under a variety of free licenses, but the images appear to be drawn atop some copyrighted newsprint. Some of these works aremarked as "public domain" using the public domain mark, others arereleased under some creative commons license, and some are all rights reserved. The works appear to be created by a private person, and I don't doubt that the artwork was created by the guy who uploaded the images to Flickr.
Some of this artwork is going to be out-of-scope, but some of this artwork (such as this portrait) are the only portraits of their respective people that I can find in the openverse search, and their Wikipedia articles lack pictures of them in their infoboxes. Is is the use of the (presumptively) copyrighted text in the background greater-than-de minimis and, if not, is it ok to upload these sorts of artwork? The pieces of artwork I'm thinking about uploading all have the PD mark, but I wanted a second opinion before uploading them. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)15:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Some more details here. If I'm understanding the Music Modernization Act, I think I have to look at the state law? This was broadcast in New York. I see articles from New York that seem to indicate public domain:
But these are all pre-MMA. So I don't know if they are relevant now. The MMA talks about protections that require sound recordings to be released non-commercially in certain circumstances which sounds like a copyright restriction, but does not exactly appear to one? Rjjiii (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
And wikimedia has a template ({{PD-US-record}} that says Files bearing this tag may be deleted in the future, depending on the outcome of community discussions and new case law. If you are the rights holder of this sound recording and do not wish to have it hosted on Commons, please contact our designated agent. Which refers to what? Rjjiii (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so even more information here. The text ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1551/text ) of the law states, Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, and in accordance with chapter 14, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title. which on a technical level should mean that pre-1972 recordings can be licensed as CC BY-SA, but the law then goes to list a bunch of things that it restricts in a manner similar to copyright so that CC BY-SA would be somewhat meaningless at best and potentially misleading. Later on, the law explains non-commercial usage, Noncommercial use of a sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, that is not being commercially exploited by or under the authority of the rights owner shall not violate subsection (a), so the commons could (it looks like) technically host the material under CC BY-SA, but would need to clearly explain that a non-copyright restriction prohibits commercial use and that it would need to be treated as CC BY-NC-SA or CC BY-NC-ND, which are both prohibited here. I am thinking that it's technically legally allowed to have these pre-1972 recordings from the template above, but that they can't legally be offered for commercial use which should make them against a wikimedia policy, but the policy doesn't seem to exist. Trying to think of a metaphor: could the commons host a freely licensed image that was almost entirely trademarked branding that prevents any commercial derivative works? Rjjiii (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I recently photographed the Port of Everett's notice of intent to obtain custody of the derelict schooner Equator, affixed to the bow of the schooner. Ideally, I'd like to upload my photo of this legal notice, but I don't know whether such a notice is subject to U.S. copyright law. Does anyone know? - Jmabel ! talk17:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Blank forms typically contain empty fields or lined spaces as well as words or short phrases that identify the content that should be recorded in each field or space. Blank forms that are designed for recording information and do not themselves convey information are uncopyrightable.
Similarly, the ideas or principles behind a blank form, the systems or methods implemented by a form, or the form’s functional layout are not protected by copyright. A blank form may incorporate images or text that is sufficiently creative to be protected by copyright. For example, bank checks may be registered if they contain pictorial decoration that is sufficiently creative. Contracts, insurance policies, and other documents with “fill-in” spaces may also be registered if there is sufficient literary authorship that is not standard or functional. In all cases, the registration covers only the original textual or pictorial expression that the author contributed to the work, but does not cover the blank form or other uncopyrightable elements that the form may contain.
If there is enough text there (maybe paragraphs of legalese, unless it's part of the law), or written in for that particular usage, it might be, but odds seem low. Impossible to say without actually seeing it though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not at all like a form, it's written more like a letter. It's about a page of text. I'll upload it and ping you to review (but I won't be doing that right now: it's 1:30AM here, and while I'm trying to clear my open issues before going to bed, uploading stuff is more than I'm taking on). - Jmabel ! talk08:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Interesting. Some of it is fill in the blank, a lot of the rest is formulaic and probably based on the law, but there may be enough. The logo is copyrightable. The rest of it... may be enough of a literary work. But honestly, I'd guess it's {{PD-EdictGov}} (this is something with legal effect) and the logo is de minimis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The policy notes that These images are available for reuse in non-commercial settings with attribution. Please use the following language when using any images that belong to Ballotpedia: This image comes from the website Ballotpedia.org. It is suitable for reuse under GFDL licensing (emphasis mine). This appears to place a restriction on the commercial re-use of images created by Ballotpedia, meaning that the images created by the website itself are not compliant with COM:L.
With respect to third-party images, it depends on the particular license of the image. Much like Fandom, we're going to need to verify the legitimate source and licensing conditions of the image that we upload before we upload it; Ballotpedia is not reliable enough in terms of image licensing to simply take them at their word. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)04:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I assume you are right about third-party images, and files that might be unattributed third-party ones. For the licence statement however, if the images are "suitable for reuse under GFDL licensing", then they must be licensed under GFDL (or a compatible licence). GFDL allows commercial reuse, so this is contradictory and you could take them at their word and regard the files GFDL-licensed – or you could respect their NC wish and regard the files as lacking a valid licence. –LPfi (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The problem I'm seeing is that it's a bit of a Crayon license. It explicitly states that it's fine to use in non-commercial settings with attribution—that part is clear. But the phrasing of [i]t is suitable for reuse under GFDL licensing is a bit less straightforward in light of the non-commercial restriction, and we substantially restrict uploads of GFDL-only files anyway. It might be worth sending them an email to see if they intend to agree to release their own works under the GFDL (or are willing to release under CC BY-SA). — Red-tailed hawk(nest)16:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
A whole bunch of copyvios
I don't know how to handle a whole bunch of copyvios at once, can someone please take care of this? The artist died in 2008, so certainly none of his work is public domain, and there is no indication that the uploader has any right to relicense this under Creative Commons. --2003:C0:8F15:4E00:50EA:C547:FAB9:162208:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The nature trail poster image has the year 1977, while the photo doesn't show any traces of weather damage. Is this a reproduction of an original, never placed outdoors? Are you free to take photos of one copy of a work if another copy can be photographed according to the FoP? –LPfi (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I think this is for data. Which in the US is generally not copyrightable anyways, but nothing wrong with putting a hat on a hat just to double-confirm that it is PD. But I don't see where it says it applies to images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠23:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
From page 2 of the policy document: Data include any scientifically or technically relevant, electronically stored information. Does this not include images? From my experience, discussion of data in the context of astronomy almost always includes images, which are often in the w:FITS data format as 2D arrays. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
In computer terms, anything that is not executable is considered "data." However, the best solution would be to ask NASA to confirm that this public domain data includes images. If so, then have them kindly forward their correspondence to VRT. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Although I understand that we need to be careful, I really do not see how data could not include images in this case. It is very clearly suggested in the policy document that data include any digital information recorded by instruments. See Appendix B's definition of, and examples for, data (p. 14) and Appendix E's descriptions of different data levels (p. 18).
Before I bother any more SOHO project scientists, I must say once again that I really think the distinction between data and images is trivial in this case and that extra precaution around whether or not the SMD data policy document covers images is unnecessary. I will give an example that I hope helps show what I mean.
I download Level 0 GOLF data from the SOHO Science Archive. It is stored as a FITS file in a one-dimensional array. I use external tools to create an image out of this data (e.g., a line graph).
I download Level 0 EIT data from the SOHO Science Archive. It is stored as a FITS file in a two-dimensional array. I use external tools to create an image out of this data (e.g., a pseudocolor plot).
Would these two cases be treated differently? Both are derived directly from SOHO data, but apparently, from what I have gathered from this discussion, the latter actually would not be considered data and is therefore not covered by the SMD data policy document I have provided. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Anyhow, do you agree that, since the SOHO data are in the public domain, the images derived from this data can be released in the public domain? If so, do you agree that such images that are hosted on SOHO's official NASA website (e.g., in the Gallery) are in the public domain? (For the latter, see my summary of what is considered "data" by the SMD below.) CoronalMassAffection (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
For completion, Appendix B's definition for "data" is given as Data: Scientific or technically relevant information that can be stored digitally and accessed electronically. / • Information produced by missions include observations, calibrations, coefficients, documentation, algorithms, and any ancillary information. Further definitions of mission data and examples are provided in Appendix E. [...] (p. 14). And relevant info from the table in Appendix E for Data Level 0 Unprocessed instrument and payload data at full resolution, with any and all communications artifacts (e.g., synchronization frames, communications headers, duplicate data) removed [...]; for Level 1: Reconstructed, unprocessed instrument data at full resolution, time-referenced, and annotated with ancillary information [...]; and for Level 4: Products delivered as part of a Mission, derived from data. This could include model outputs, analysis of results, catalogs, or databases derived from Mission data [...] (p. 18). CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Even if we accept that the images are in PD, adding to them the PD-USGov-NASA template is wrong, as SOHO isn't a solely NASA project. It would need a new template, like eg. template:ESO. C messier (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment There is no copyright for these images in France, as Works without a particular or original character, which are trivial reproductions are not protected (see COM:France). Yann (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
_Frese.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:DR_99_151.png){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=751604844){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
. These images are consequently nominated for deletion.
_(1).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Flickr.jpg){kind=link}
