Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/04

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

PD-shape

Hi! I was adviced to ask here if the logo from this profile picture could fall under PD-shape for being simple geometric shapes. Many thanks in advance! NoonIcarus (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is creative enough and so could be eligible for copyright Bedivere (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bedivere: I understand, many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

PD-ItalyGov and US copyright

I've opened a new topic on the matter here. Friniate (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Is a performance of C. R. E. A. M by the Wu protected by copyright?

I would have assumed so, but there is also the argument to be made that the staff MTV knew what they were doing when they released the video under a CC-BY 3.0 license. Here is the file in question. Bremps... 02:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The performance of C. R. E. A. M by the Wu is definitely protected by copyright. Otherwise it would be impossible to license it! The question is about licensing, not about copyright. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

no photographers listed

There are lots of paintings here from the 1800s and earlier, which I always saw as public domain work. I assumed that people were going to museums and taking pictures of these works and then removing the frames before posting. But I have noticed that the source/photographer box is never a name of a person. It's always a website. I wonder if people are just going to websites, copying these paintings and uploading them, which I assume is bad. SwoossieLou (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While identifying the photographer is probably the best solution, PD artworks that are mere copies of the original can be uploaded without identifying the photographer. These should include {{PD-Art}} or one of its variants. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Lester Pearson 1957.jpg

This photo is claimed as Public Domain, in Sweden and the US. I don't see how its a Swedish photograph, as it was taken in Montreal, Canada by Gaby (Gabriel Desmarais), 1956.[1] It's probably PD in the USA, but don't photos need to be PD in both source country and the USA? According to the Banq fonds for Gabriel Desmarais, all works are Copyrighted (Life+70). The GabyEstate is also selling prints on ebay at https://www.ebay.ca/itm/276064146320 which had some info.
Based on this info, should it be deleted as Copyrighted in home country? PascalHD (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The country of origin is the country of first publication, not necessarily where it was taken or the nationality of the author. I think the presumption was this was a portrait taken specifically for the Nobel Prize and published as part of that, in Sweden. At that point, the hope was that it fell under Sweden's 25-year term for "simple photos" which would have expired before the URAA date. However...
I'm not sure that qualified for the "simple photo" in the first place. Studio portraits, where just about everything is under control of the photographer, are usually "works". It's usually snapshots or news photos where the photographer has no control over the scene that are simple. If not simple, that would make it copyrighted in both countries. Given the link you gave, which shows that copies existed in 1956, then it seems likely that the country of origin was Canada, and it was published in 1956. That would make the Swedish question moot (for Commons anyways). Until 1999, the copyright term in Canada was 50 years from creation for photos, simple or not. That changed in 1999 to become 50pma, and just recently to 70pma. That would mean that while it got somewhat close to expiring, it never did, and thus the U.S. copyright was restored as well. It would expire in Canada in 2062, and the U.S. in 2052. If the photo was published within 30 days in other countries (particularly the U.S.) that could change things again, but we may need some evidence of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I've decided to open a DR to furthur discuss it there instead. Any further points by anyone can be made here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Lester Pearson 1957 PascalHD (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please confirm...

Hi there! Can someone please confirm that this image is CCBYSA4, and is therefore allowed on Commons? Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The source page says it is available under {{OGL3}}, which is accepted on Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks for your time on this, and your confirmation. There are hundreds of similar aerial photographs, and I wanted to be 100% certain. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Llywelyn2000: I notice the file is called File:Black Point Rath, Pembrokeshire, Wales - Bryngaer y Penrhyn Du o Wefan Coflein ar CCBYSA4 via OGL.png, which includes references to specific licences. It is not a good idea to include licence details in the file name (especially in this case, as both licences are wrong - it is OGL 3.0 rather than the original OGL). Would a file title of "Black Point Rath, Pembrokeshire, Wales - Bryngaer y Penrhyn Du o Wefan Coflein ar" make sense or is the Welsh a bit nonsensical now that the licences are removed? If you can confirm the correct file name, we can request a page move. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: many thanks! I didn't spot the OGL3 detail! I've never added licence details in the past, but needed to bring the openness of this image to the fore, before it was deleted by someone! This is because RCAHMW have never in the past placed their images on an open licence! After 10 years of discussions, we have a break through! I've now requested a page move, and thanks for your input in this. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Is body camera = public domain?

File:David Ben Avraham raising his hands moments before his killing.jpg Could anyone help double check if this photo qualifies for public domain? I believe it is a screenshot from one of the copies of this video. Thank you. Would body camera video (if it is that) qualify for pre-positioned video? Starship.paint (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: Not sure but
To me body camera does not seem prepositioned and seems not eligible for copyright but Wikimedia Commons thinking has no relationship to what copyright law does or interprets with new technology. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Samsung GT-S3600 found in Google

Hi, I am OperationSakura6144. I was finding an image to use as an icon for my new upcoming userboxes.

When I searched in Google for that, I found this, a black stylish Samsung GT-S3600 on a hand. The photo of S3600 reminds me the old times of Samsung before the Galaxy phones in the late 2000's, and it is a ideal images for my userbox describing my love to retro and old 2000's technology.

Despite getting an ideal image, I find something wrong. The website having that image belongs to Carousell, a marketplace website. Now, I am confused. Shall I use that or not? If it is, can it be uploaded to WikiComms without any copyright issues? I am in the middle of the sea, because WikiComms doesn't allow non-free and copyrighted material, and I got a kinda non-free image in Google for my userboxes.

I would like you to help me in this situation. I don't intend or like to violate a copyright, just for personal reasons. That's why I am counting on you. I hope you get me a solution for this.

To end this post, I would be happy to hear I can use the WikiComms image of Samsung GT-S3600, especially on a hand operating it.

Thank you. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@OperationSakura6144: Have you reviewed COM:NETC?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I've read COM:NETC. It says public domain images are allowed in WikiComms. The image of Samsung GT-S3600 I wanna use is kinda public domain, as it's available through Google, but I am not sure about the copyright laws permittting the usage of images from commercial websites. They would allow commercial images to be used as free in some cases, right? Even if it's so, I need to find what copyright licenses the image of S3600 has to prevent copyvios. In simple words, I can use the image of S3600 from a commercial website in WikiComms after uploading it, but it has to comply with the copyright laws here. Otherwise, that would end up in a copyvio. I hope you understand it. Thank you. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi OperationSakura6144. Your The image of Samsung GT-S3600 I wanna use is kinda public domain statment seems to be a common mistake that many make in that looks like you're confusing "publicly available" with "public domain". You can find out more about public domain here, but the fact that something is available online (even something that can be freely downloaded) doesn't mean it also free from copyright protection. "Public domain" bascially refers to content that once was but no longer is protected by copyright for some reason (e.g its age) or content that is considered too simple or too common (i.e. not creative enough to warrant copyright protection) to be protected by copyright. In principle, the copyright of a photo is considered to be owned by the person taking the photo; so, if you didn't take a photo you want to upload, you probably should assume that the copyright is "owned" by the person who did per COM:NETCOPY and that you're going to need their COM:CONSENT if you want to upload the file to Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, part of the confusion stems from "public domain" having more than one meaning. While we on Commons use it in the sense of "free from copyright," there is another usage that means, "available to the public." The term is explained differently between dictionaries, which also sows some confusion, especially with non-native speakers of English (who won't know which dictionary to rely on). Other than being understanding about the source of confusion, there is not much more we can do. From our perspective, we are talking about the definition related to copyright only. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry for mixing up the words "public domain" and "publicly available". Anyways, that was not the topic I was talking about. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@OperationSakura6144: Right, you can't without Samsung and the photographer sending permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
You're right, but I need to tell something. Samsung has nothing to do with it, because it is about an unused product that's for sale in Karousell, and I don't think I need to contact the photographer you refer for my trivial userboxes, because I now realised the S3600 in www.carousell.ph was sold out! Even though, to avoid copyvios, I am giving credit to the so-called photographer for his/her image after uploading it and adding to Category: Samsung mobile phones (I am not being dishonest by the way). Thank you for helping me, and I hope you can help me in times of worry. I appreciate your help. See you all. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@OperationSakura6144: Giving credit to the photographer doesn't remove copyright. Please do not upload images from the Internet without the formal written permission from the copyright holder, who is usually the photographer. Yann (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I could've, but there's no time for that because I cannot waste time to have the permission granted to upload images from internet just for my userboxes. Now, I've uploaded the image of S3600 and gave credit to the photographer. I am not egoistic, but I had to do it. I'm sorry. It's too early to do that. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@OperationSakura6144: I deleted your file as it is a copyright violation. You say "I cannot waste time to have the permission granted to upload images from Internet", but it is essential to respect copyright. Do not upload it again, or you will be blocked. Yann (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Fine, you did what you should. Now, I am not angry with you because I have many ways other than uploading images from internet, but, can you and other users help me by uploading a photo of Samsung GT-S3600 on a hand, so that it doesn't serve benefits just for me but also for the community? I don't think it can be done in a moment, but I am sure every user in WikiComms is capable for that. Sorry for committing a copyvio, in your gut felling atleast, but it's okay. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@OperationSakura6144 usually, it is the obligation of the uploader to contact the photographer of the internet image to obtain commercial Creative Commons license clearance. COM:VRTS correspondence is encouraged: VRT page provides the steps for the copyright holder to send licensing authorization to Wikimedia Foundation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
"I am not egoistic, but I had to do it. I'm sorry". You were explained several times in this thread it was not okay to upload the image, yet you did. If you are unsure about the copyright status of certain file, please do not upload, and when seeking advice, please don't disregard it. It wastes our time, and yours, too. Bedivere (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Maps

Hi. I wanted to ask for more information about the copyright status of maps. I have a scanned map from a textbook and I have read through Commons:Threshold of originality#Maps, wondering if it can be uploaded. I think the design is too simple, but it marks the location of several ports and boats. Is there a way I could tell if it is suitable for upload? Maybe I could ask a Workshop for a derivative work? Many thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: It is very difficult to know without looking at the individual maps, but in general maps are exactly as copyrightable as any other image. - Jmabel ! talk 17:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I'll think about creating a new map from scratch, in that case. Many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@NoonIcarus: typically no reason to start from scratch. Start from a PD or free-licensed map of the relevant area. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Organs in countries with no-FoP indoors: copyrightable or not?

From the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Heilig Geist (Zürich-Höngg) (still-open Swiss FoP deletion request) comes a claim that organs are mere utilitarian objects whose designers cannot protect. Is it true for all organs in all countries with no applicable indoor FoP, like Switzerland and Germany? Some discussion may be needed as I think there are images of organs that have been deleted in the past. Ping two people involved in that DR: @Paradise Chronicle and IronGargoyle: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

This is something I've been wondering about myself and at least IMO they should be copyrightable in cases where it's not a "simple" organ. For instance if it contains an inornate or ornate design. Although who knows where the line is, but that's at least where I'd draw it at. Since I think you lose the whole argument that it is purely utilitarian at that point. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Some of these pictures show more than the organ. So these could be a problem. Also something must be subject to a copyright in the first place. I doubt it is the case for File:Heilig Geist Höngg Werktagskapelle.JPG. This only shows chairs, a table, and plain walls. Yann (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I'll add COM:UA which refers on utilitarian works, mostly on US law and makes a difference between law in the US and law in other countries. In in Switzerland (and other countries) originality seems to be important (chapter copyright at p.3) and in my opinion an organ in a church is in the vast majorities (I have not yet come across a duplicate or a series of church organs) an original. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The shape and arrangement of the pipes and organ housing may be aesthetically pleasing, but it is inseparable from its function (the type of sound produced). This inseparability of form and function is the key element of COM:UA. I should also mention that COM:UA notes the threshold of originality for the applied arts (which this would be) is higher in Switzerland. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Smithsonian Institution Copyright

I was wondering whether this article and in particular the drawings therein could be in the public domain under {{PD-USGov-SI}}, given that they were made by an employee of the Smithsonian Institutions / the US National Museum. The notes on that template suggest that some additional research may have to be done to ascertain the funds from which the author had been paid, but maybe this is known for staff scientists at the museum in the 1960s? Felix QW (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure.
A government employee wrote an article with illustrations. All works of that employee are public domain. The first publication of that article is in a journal which claims copyright. I am not sure what happens when a unpublished work which is public domain from creation is first published in a journal which seeks to acquire the copyright of everyone who contributes to it. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Baseball card uploads

I'm looking through JonP125's uploads. I'm seeing hundreds of baseball cards with extremely shaky public domain claims.

None of the uploads explain why they are marked as unregistered or without a notice.

What does the board feel should be done? I'm loathe to do a mass nomination without community input first. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

No-notice claims should be fairly straightforward -- if there is a notice on the card, it's not fine. We should see the whole front and the whole back, of course. If cards came in packs and there was a notice on the outer container, that could be an issue. No-renewal claims can be rebutted by finding the renewal number. Looking through several of the uploads, the source usually has the front and back, and I don't see notices. So, not sure what the problem is. The uploader seems to have been somewhat careful about only using pre-1989 cards. There may be some mistakes but any DRs should probably be on a case-by-case basis if there is reason to doubt that we are seeing the entire front or back. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
It depends on the company and year but most of the time with modern baseball cards the copyright notices are on the back of the cards and are on all the cards for the same season. If there are ones that don't have images the back they are easy enough to find on eBay. Although if there's like a 1978 card from Tops that doesn't have a notice then its pretty likely none of Tops cards for that season will have one. I don't think I've ever seen a notice on the pack, but then you could argue the packaging is what is copyrighted, not the cards themselves. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The only one I've looked into definitely had a copyright notice on its original publication. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
That's not even a baseball card. Raw photographs of players are probably going to be copyrighted by default. Largely because they aren't technically "published" at that point yet. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
It is the same photo which was later? used on the card under DR, though the card had a much tighter crop so not all of it became PD. As I mentioned there though, all copies had to have a notice. Per 17 USC 405, notices omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public would not lose copyright. That was also the case law from before that. I gave a couple links in the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#1969_and_1971_US_newspaper_clippings that most rulings were between one and two percent which allowed copyright to be kept. If notice was omitted on the baseball card, I would say it's OK. Now if that photographer registered the copyright, that would also keep copyright per the 1978 law. Those records would be online at copyright.gov and should be easy to search and find. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleted component image in a photomosaic

On the image File:Franz Marc Blue Horse 1911 Photomosaic.jpg, the description states that photo 69, File:AIRPOWER16_-_Air_to_Air_JAS_39C_Gripen_(29096049140).jpg, is in the image, even though it was deleted in May 2023 as it discovered that it was was mistakenly put under a CC licence by the organisation the image was licensed for. Because the image is no longer freely licensed or on Commons, does it require being replaced with another image (likely one of a similar overall colour) to remain on Commons?

The original uploader is inactive, so this could warrant a re-upload with that one difference if necessary. Xeroctic (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

It probably should. If a photo is scaled down enough, the result could be de minimis (just providing smudges of color), but that mosaic is huge and when zoomed in you see the original photograph of the jet just fine. You might still argue de minimis in relation to the whole, so not sure of deletion of the whole thing on those grounds, but replacement would be best. Unfortunately, that is not a lossless change unless starting from scratch. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

license tag for unk. photo taker

https://web.archive.org/web/20220122162410/https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51835959831_9b5a50b086_h.jpg

Hello. This photo is from a tennis tournament sanctioned by the US Tennis Assoc. in 1924. It's a random gathering of players and officials. The photographer's name is unknown. It could have just been someone who works for the tennis club. Maybe the photo appeared in one of the club's newsletters. It would be practically impossible to verify, as that detail is just lost with time. What is known is that everyone pictured received a copy of the photo for a keepsake. This included the woman pictured second from the far lower left. She kept her copy and passed it down the family line to the present.

Hence, would it be acceptable to use as a license the following in curly brackets: Cc-by-3.0-heirs. Or, assuming it was printed somewhere, could the license tag be the following in curly brackets: PD-US-expired. Thks., JimPercy (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If those copies were distributed in the US before 1929 then it is {{PD-US-expired}}.
For future reference, "heirs" licences are only acceptable from the heirs of the copyright owner (normally the photographer). The descendants of someone who only received a copy of a photo can't grant a licence. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so the heirs' tag is out, but not the expired tag. The photo was taken in the middle of a week long event. Everyone pictured who wanted a copy was either given one during the event or it was mailed to them shortly thereafter. The year is verifiable as two tennis magazines from 1924 give the name of the woman mentioned, as having played several rounds in this New York tournament. Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

PD-chart question

hi, I uploaded this file because it seems to be below the threshold of originality for charts. On English Wikipedia, another user FeRDNYC is arguing the opposite. Appreciate any input. Buidhe paid (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Where is this argument taking place? Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Zero-day (computing) Buidhe paid (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I think you are misinterpreting FeRDNYC. They don't appear to have problems with the copyright status since they say "I have no trouble accepting that commons:Threshold of originality#Charts says that those images are freely available for our use". They go on to suggest that the article could be improved by presenting the data in the charts via other means. FeRDNYC isn't saying the charts are copyright violations, they are suggesting alternatives to the charts that they feel improve on usability and accessibility. These appear to be issues of article quality on Wikipedia and not a concern for Commons (other than their preference for charts in vector format over raster format that Commons also shares, but that isn't a threshold of originality issue). —RP88 (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buidhe paid (talk • contribs) 22:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

US Library of Congress YT channel

Would this video posted by the en:United States Library of Congress to its official YouTube channel be {{PD-USGov-LOC-created}}? If it is, then en:File:JoyWilliamsLOC2021.jpeg uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content probably can be converted to a PD license and moved to Commons. FWIW, the YouTube video doesn't have any licensing information (at least none I could fine), so it appears to have been released under the standard YouTube license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The source is https://www.loc.gov/item/webcast-9956 , which mentions that the video was created by the Library of Congress, but may contain third-party material, which is not licensed to distribute. Not sure there is much in that video, with a quick scan, other than the book cover of the book under discussion which is shown a couple of times (and some other book covers, but those may be de minimis). Any other content would be PD-USGov-LOC-created (the YouTube license can't be enforced via copyright other than those derivative rights, and is moot because you can get it from loc.gov directly). The screenshot should be fine, though it would be best to get the original uploaded size (or bigger) moved here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The description of that YouTube video links to its source the LoC where the video can be watched directly from the LoC instead of YouTube. Unfortunately, if you expand the "Rights & Access" section for this video at the LoC it says "While the Library of Congress created most of the videos in this collection, they include copyrighted materials that the Library has permission from rightsholders to present. Rights assessment is your responsibility. The written permission of the copyright owners in materials not in the public domain is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions." So while the frame of video captured in en:File:JoyWilliamsLOC2021.jpeg may have been created by the LoC (and hence PD as a work by a US government employee), the LoC rights statement is not as helpful as we'd wish since it doesn't identify the portions of this video that might be protected by copyright. That being said, after watching the video, it seems likely that the portion of video that the image is from was created by the Library of Congress. —RP88 (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Confusing series of copyright issues

Hi, I had come here via this image which seems doubtful to me, and then I noticed that the user has uploaded a whole series of images just within the last few days. Some of them seem o.k., but there seem to be several issues with some of them, so I need some help with that.

For one thing, there are aerial pictures that don't make sense. This one says it's "a work by Kiel Luftaufnahme.JPG from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kiel_Luftaufnahme.JPG". Now what's that all about, did this user upload the image of another user? Here's another one, and here.

And what is this supposed to mean: "Es wird Belgani als Autor angenommen" (It is assumed that Belgani is the author). Who is Belgani, and why are we entitled to publish his images under a CC license?

This one makes me wonder about threshold of originality.

Then, there is a whole series of images "Geschäfte im Kieler Hauptbahnhof". Not sure about freedom of panorama since it's inside a building (train station shopping mall).

Some of the images also seem somewhat out of scope, but I personally don't care much if there are few useless pictures lying around here.

Thanks, --2003:C0:8F14:5900:F5ED:C0A3:A318:2432 21:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The first one you mention, File:Kiel Luftaufnahme 02.jpg, is a version of the previously-uploaded File:Kiel Luftaufnahme.JPG, straightened a bit and with some glass reflections removed. No problem there, and helpful. Another, File:CAPOAT9F 02.jpg, is a straightened and cropped version of File:CAPOAT9F.jpg, which was uploaded in 2007 and the permission is given there. Those are both fine, and with proper sources, though it's possible the result did not add any copyrightable expression and the licenses possibly should be the same as the originals. The third and fourth are also cleaned up and brightened versions of the originals. No issues, and that is encouraged.
For File:Komponenten des iPhone 4.jpg, I guess that is a photo of someone else's display of a phone. Is there a copyright on the arrangement of parts? Maybe. Kind of edgy to nominate that one but someone with a better sense of Germany's threshold may answer better. Whether those train stations ones are FoP problems, also not sure -- a shopping mall in a train station. Sort of outside though under a roof, and external type storefronts, but it is in a train station (so unsure if it counts as a public place). Weird edge cases there; really not sure. By and large the uploads seem OK, though it's always easy to run afoul of derivative rights stuff. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Clockread.jpg

File:Clockread.jpg seems like it would be OK to upload to Commons per COM:FOP Canada, assuming that permantly situated per en:McMaster Faculty of Engineering#Iron Ring Clock. Does it also need a license for the clock itself (e.g. {{FoP-Canada}} in addition to the license provided for the photograph? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that {{FoP-Canada}} is necessary here. Ruslik (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Uploads of art from from Daniel VILLAFRUELA.

@Daniel VILLAFRUELA has uploaded a number of pictures (e.g., File:Herrenchiemsee-Château- Salle de bal-20000809.jpg, File:Herrenchiemsee-Château- L'automne-20000809.jpg, which depict two-dimensional artwork, and has licensed them as {{Self|Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, with no mention of the original artist, use of {{PD-Art}}, or the copyright status of the original artwork. I'm not sure how to approach cleaning this up, because the needed information simply isn't present. grendel|khan 22:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Uploads by User:ChantalFT

Hello, The french article on the artist fr:Chantal Fontvieille brought me here. All the illustrations are uploads by User:ChantalFT. Although the user may be Chantal Fontvieille herself, there is, yet, no proof that it really is the case. For some pictures, this user does not have the copyright (books). But, for others, works of art, the question of the copyright is important, if the user is not the artist herself, and I don't know the rules is the user is the artist herself. O Kolymbitès (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@O Kolymbitès: She may prove her identity via VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
I know how to inform users on fr: but I'm not sure how to do it here... Sorry, O Kolymbitès (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Deutsche Fotothek

Hi. So at Commons:Deutsche Fotothek, it is explained that Deutsche Fotothek released around 250,000 images to Commons. However, at Commons talk:Deutsche Fotothek#What happened?, Rosenzweig noted many years ago that the project ran into some problems and only a portion were ever uploaded (Category:Images from the Deutsche Fotothek only lists 62,000). Among the photographers whose works were being released was Abraham Pisarek (Category:Photographs by Abraham Pisarek). I was wondering if Pisarek's photographs of the 3rd Federal Congress of the Democratic Women's Association of Germany ([2]) was among those that were released under CC license but never uploaded. Thanks. Curbon7 (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The images of this set in particular would be of great value to us at the Women in Red project, so I'd like to know if they are usable. Curbon7 (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review of Copyrighted Images on Solar Eclipse Article

We're currently addressing vandalism on the Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 article, with several images posted from suspicious accounts. It appears that some images contain copyrighted material from MHT Aviation Photography, with one being a Photoshop file (File:April 2024 Solar Eclipse Phases New Hampshire.jpg) and the other having been edited with Adobe software (File:Totality - April 2024 Eclipse New Hampshire.jpg). As per Wikipedia's policy, copyrighted or partially copyrighted images are not permitted. Could someone review these images or flag them for further examination? Thank you. AceSeeker (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Their username, KMHT Spotter, suggests that they are probably the same person as "MHT Aviation Photography". If these images have been previously published on an external website without a free license, then they will need to email COM:VRT to confirm their identity, but if not, we can simply assume good faith that they are telling the truth about their authorship.
"As per Wikipedia's policy, copyrighted or partially copyrighted images are not permitted" - not true. Being copyrighted does not preclude an image from being freely licensed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt response. I was under the impression that by sharing my work on Wikimedia Commons, I was granting permission for anyone to use, copy, modify, and sell it without notification. Does it mean that I can post my own images and request proper attribution, linking to the license, and acknowledgment of any modifications? Could you please explain what 'freely licensed' means in the context of Wikimedia Commons? I'm a bit confused about the distinction between freely licensed images and copyrighted ones. AceSeeker (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
By granting permission for anyone to use, copy, modify, and sell your image, you do not give up your copyright to the image; instead, you are simply offering very permissive licensing terms (known as a free license) on the image, and you only have the right to grant that permission by virtue of being the copyright holder. Commons accepts two types of images: 1) copyrighted but freely licensed; 2) public domain aka not copyrighted. See COM:L for more information. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Any image that is licensed must be copyrighted, since a copyright license is a permission grant from a copyright holder. Certain licenses are free (as in, they meet the requirements to be considered a free license on Commons). For the policy, see Commons:Licensing.
Of course, only some copyrighted works are freely licensed. Most are not freely licensed.
Then, some works are in the public domain, and no license is required to use them.
If you submit your own work, you do so either by granting a license or dedicating it to the public domain. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
So if I post my own images, can I specify the terms under which others may use my images? For example, could I request proper attribution, linking to the license, and acknowledgment of any modifications made to the image? AceSeeker (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, as long as the restrictions are along those lines (and don't prevent it from being "free"). The Creative Commons licenses pretty much all specify the above as being required. The ShareAlike license additionally requires that any derivative work also be licensed with the same (or later version of) CC-BY-SA license. If someone violates that, the only way to enforce it is via the copyright you own (and it would be up to you to notify, or sue, as you are the copyright owner). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
What puzzled me was the statement in the second box of this image "Remember: By sharing your work on Wikimedia Commons, you grant anyone permission to use, copy, modify, and sell it without notifying you." However, there are also different types of licensing available for me to choose from, such as Attribution and Attribution-ShareAlike, which grant different permissions. So, it's somewhat different from what the second box suggests. AceSeeker (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I think, for the sake of brevity, that particular box probably just uses some boilerplate language to try and cover as many situations as possible with respect to a typical CC license and also keep things as simple as possible for those using the Upload Wizard. What matters are the terms and conditions and conditions of the actual license you end up chosing because those are what reusers are going to be expected to satisfy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@AceSeeker: all of the language about "Remember: By sharing…" is correct. We accept only licenses that meet at least these criteria. Some other restrictions (such attribution) are allowed. - Jmabel ! talk 14:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done Files tagged. At least File:Map of MHT routes 2005.jpg uploaded by the same account is a copyright violation. Other images do not have EXIF data, except 2 taken by an Apple smartphone... Yann (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Should images without EXIF data and seem suspicious be removed from an article or reported here first? AceSeeker (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Help needed

The uploads by this user (who, by the way, has been doing strongly marketing edits in the German WP), are by different photographers, and I don't see that these photographers have given their permission. I marked one of them, do I need to mark them one by one individually, or is there a faster way to do this? Thanks, --2003:C0:8F1C:7D00:C55B:C2BE:1E89:F0DC 08:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done Files tagged, user warned. Yann (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! --2003:C0:8F1C:7D00:8DEA:8745:F820:4D7F 11:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello once more, Yann, sorry to bother you once more, but I just came upon a similar case. I have no issues believing that this film company has the usage rights to these images, but I have huge issues believing that these images were published under a Creative Commons license. Thanks again, --2003:C0:8F1C:7D00:8DEA:8745:F820:4D7F 14:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I nominated for deletion 3 film screenshots: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RANFILM1982, and warned the user. Please nominate more if you find copies on the Internet. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I had already addressed them on their German WP talk page too. I'll keep an eye on that. --2003:C0:8F1C:7D00:8DEA:8745:F820:4D7F 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Template update help

Should we update the template for Template:PD-US-not renewed? The template was most recently updated with a redirect on February 5, 2024 and before that it was 2019.

The issue at hand is that it says "Canada (50 years p.m.a)", which I take to mean the rule of term is 50 years after death. However, Canada updated their laws in 2022 and it is now life+70. I understand the benefit of having an example of a life+50 that doesn't adhere to rule of shorter term, but Canada doesn't seem to fit anymore. We might swap in Afghanistan instead since they don't follow the rule of shorter term at all and have a life+50 term.

Thoughts? SDudley (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I've corrected it to 70 years pma, at least in the English and Spanish iterations. Bedivere (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! SDudley (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Strange file history

Does anyone understand what is going on here? The uploader requested "please delete this file. the right owner denied the right to use it", we don't know who the photographer/ copyright holder is except that it's "from Facebook", there is apparently no permission or VRT communication, yet the photo has not been deleted. What's going on? --2003:C0:8F1C:7D00:8DEA:8745:F820:4D7F 11:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Inertia6084, who should know better than this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The user used Criterion 1 and wanted to change the name. That in the description was more text, like 'please delete this file', I don't know, it's more than a half year ago. Why do a rename request, when it must be deleted? PS @Jeff G - "who should know better than this". Maybe I did not see that, so that can happen. It's easy to say something like that from the sideline. Regards, - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I have marked it with no permission since, as there is no VRT or even a link to a comment from the subject where permission was given. Bidgee (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I had an appointment, so I had hardly time to reply here. - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
On Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, people sometimes blame you, that you didn't see something, in this case, almost seven months ago. I don't happen often, but on Wikipedia I once got the question of why I patrolled something. I said: I can't remember. Then I checked and it was something from two years back. But about this: I would have put a DR on it, or 'subst:npd' (no permission with date). But if you don't see something, you don't see it. So please come to my talk page, if you see something like this, and just ask "did you miss the text here?", with a link? (or something like that) Not on a more public place 'pinging', "who should know better than this". That has nothing to do with "knowing better". The point is made, it has no added value, because I just haven't seen it, as I said before. I have been doing voluntary work here for years and quite a bit. This is not the way I want to be addressed and/or treated. Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Have a nice evening (or whatever). Have a good one! - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Inertia6084 (talk), it certainly wasn't my intention to accuse or blame anyone. I just didn't quite get what was happening there, and since I consider copyright an important thing, I thought I'd ask here. --2003:C0:8F1C:7D00:8DEA:8745:F820:4D7F 15:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
It's ok, I'm more responding to the user who pinged me, but I think they didn't mean it that way. Thanks for your reply! Have a good one. - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Inertia6084: Sorry it came out that way. Since the file is already tagged, I will let the tag play out.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

File:AlexanderRatter PetersPhotography.jpg is also odd. It's listed by the same uploader as "own work", but there is a VRT ticket and an attribution to another photographer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Images on a famous climbers website

I just noticed that the website of a famous big wall climber en:Andy Kirkpatrick has the following noted at the bottom of each page:

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

His website is more than just a blog, and it quite extensive and professional (he is a well regarded climbing author and instructor), so I take this is a deliberate statement on his part.

Can I download the images on his website to WikiCommons? I wanted to check here before starting? Aszx5000 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, fine. Please ask for {{Licensereview}} with this template. Yann (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@Aszx5000: I concur, except where otherwise noted. I appreciate the link to the website, but it could be more specific.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Much appreciated. It is very hard to get quality license free climbing images - particularly ones of technical climbing items - and his had a lot of them (including illustrations). I terms of uploading, should I just right-click to save them onto my computer and upload one-by-one, confirming the licensing status at each time? thanks again. Aszx5000 (talk) Aszx5000 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@Aszx5000: Yes, he doesn't seem to rely on you clicking the image to get the full-size version like other webmasters do to save space and bandwidth.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Elevating deletion request

Hello! A few weeks ago I nominated an upload of 1929's Cocoanuts. It did have its copyright renewed, and it needs to be deleted, but I haven't seen movement on it. Is there a better method for speedy deletion? I have seen it, but I'm not certain how to instigate it like a regular deletion.--SDudley (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Took care of it. ✓ Done Abzeronow (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
For speedy deletion processes see COM:CSD. However, for cases of copyright renewal, it is probably better to open a deletion discussion as you did here. Discussions allow you to explain the nuances involved in each situation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thank you for all of the info! it is very helpful to know. SDudley (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Copyrights owned by the Australian Archives

This 1956 Australian image is kept here as a government image, whose copyright expires in 50 years and which is considered unaffected by URAA restoration. It is sourced to the National Library of Australia, here. However, the only evidence I see of it being a government picture is that the National Archives own the copyright. Is that sufficient evidence for eligibility for {{PD-AustraliaGov}}? This would also affect other images from that source, so I wanted to bring it up here. Felix QW (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks to be an official portrait of an Australian premier, which is highly suggestive of it being a government work originally, and the archives owns the negative. Hard to imagine that not being Crown Copyright. I would expect they would have records of any external source it was donated from. If there is a specific indication it came from somewhere else, it could be reason to bring them up, though I think part of their law (maybe a recent change) indicates that even copyrights later transferred to the government get Crown Copyright status after that. So the fact they own the copyright may indeed by itself make this tag valid. Their law (section 180) states that the Crown Copyright duration terms apply when the Commonwealth or a State is simply the "owner" of a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense, thank you very much! I noticed the phrase "owner of the copyright", but I was unsure whether that would include copyright transferred to the government after creation. Felix QW (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Copyright Zoe Meyer (english, german an portguguese article)

Here a picture is available. It was published with "Nutzung unter CC BY-ND 3.0 DE, bitte ausschließlich zu redaktionellen Zwecken. Credits: Grüne im Bundestag, S. Kaminski" (see same page at "weitere Infos"). Is it legal to upload the picture? Carolus requiescat (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Carolus requiescat: It's not illegal, but "ND" restrictions are not acceptable on commons. See Commons:Licensing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, unfortunately I am not that familiar with Commons and it´s rules. Carolus requiescat (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

A vision for 2020

I have a small collection of work I'd like help revising. I don't know how all this works yet. Let me know if anyone is interested. Thank you 2603:6080:EE40:1BD:2867:64D:BDB6:CE02 03:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

To attract volunteers, you will have to be clearer on the type of help you need. Is it to revise some file names, file descriptions, licences, categories or do you need help with photo editing? From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Targaryen sigil files

Can anyone request the mass deletion of the files in this category (except the original ones like A and B)? They are either copies or derivatives of the design created by HBO for Game of Thrones (the Targaryen article on Fandom wiki explains it. Click on the image and then on "More info"). Enaldo(discussão) 12:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@EnaldoSS: Hi, and welcome. I did that for you in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coats of arms of House Targaryen with VFC. You may do so yourself next time.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Enaldo(discussão) 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@EnaldoSS: You're welcome!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Crosswiki transfer license check

It looks like File:Apidej Sit Hirun.JPG was transferred to Commons from Thai Wikipedia in 2014 but the th:File:Apidet 01.JPG no longer exists and there no other information provided to verify that this has been released as licensed. Since en:Apidej Sit-Hirun died in 2013, this photo couldn't have been taken on 6 September 2014, and this blog shows a similar photo probably taken roughly around the same time. It's possible this could be PD per COM:Thailand, but I'm not sure. Any opinions on whether there's a way to keep this or does it need to go to COM:DR per COM:PCP. FWIW, the uploader hasn't edited on Commons since mid-December 2023, but does appear to be active on French Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe one could ask at the Thai Wikipedia embassy for an administrator to access the deleted revision and see whether it contained any valuable information on the license? It may well just have been deleted because there was a Commons duplicate, thereby accidentally cutting off the information trail.
{{PD-Thailand}} could be tight anyway, as it would require pre-1972 publication, and it would in all likelihood be protected in the US by URAA restorations for many years to come regardless of its current status in Thailand. Felix QW (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Phố đi bộ Nguyễn Huệ trong sự kiện HIFF 2024

File:Phố đi bộ Nguyễn Huệ trong sự kiện HIFF 2024.jpg

Is this fall under COM:FOP Vietnam? Phương Linh (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Licensing of photographs from Poland taken before and during WWII

I've just created an article on Bela Hazan, who acted as a courier for the Jewish resistance during WWII. There are some images that I would like to be able to use in the article. They can all be seen here, the group of three couriers, Bela Hazan's mugshot from Auschwitz and the family photograph. Looking at another example, File:Frumka-Plotnicka.jpg, it uses two license templates "PD-Polish" and "PD-anon-70-EU". Would these be appropriate for the three images that I'm interested in uploading? Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify I should note that all the photos were taken in Poland as it was then but the first was taken in Grodno (now part of Belarus), the second at Auschwitz (still Poland) with the other almost certainly taken in Rozhyshche (now part of Ukraine). Mikenorton (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Change of question as it seems that all three are already on Commons - see File:שלוש הקשריות.jpg, File:Ktystyna Kossowska 24453 - high resolution.jpg and File:משפחת חזן.jpg but the licensing used doesn't seem to match what I know of their origin. So the question now is, should I update the licensing using the templates that I suggested above? Mikenorton (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If we know they were published in Poland, {{PD-Poland}} is probably what you want. I thought Poland restored photographs to EU norms, but I'm not entirely sure. But Poland's general term for anonymous works was 50 years until 1994, so pre-WWII stuff is usually fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, although I'm not sure what published means for instance for a photograph taken by a Gestapo officer, presumably the date it was first printed? Anyway I'll make the changes. Mikenorton (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
The term "published" can indeed be quite tortured, and differ by country. For PD-Poland I think it only matters for the U.S. definition at the time, which is itself difficult to define and can be based on judicial circuit, but if copies were given out beyond immediate family (and copies given to a family by a professional photographer may well count), it likely was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, that's mostly reassuring, which is the best I can hope for I reckon. Mikenorton (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

License template for PD-1996-95 y.o. non-US publications

How can I describe works published in other countries between 1929 and 1977 with copyright restored in US by URAA, but wich are now in Public domain in US because this works are 95+ years old? For example this work, published in 1920 in Lithuania, author died in 1952, so it was not PD in 1996, but it is both PD for Lithuania (70 years after author's death) and US (95+ years old publication). Plaga med (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, {{PD-old-70-expired}} is the right license for this case. Yann (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
{{PD-old-auto-expired|1952}} would be even better. --Rosenzweig τ 20:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
So I don't need to show explicitly why it is PD in US after 1996? Plaga med (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
You do, but that is precisely what the "expired" part of the tag does. Felix QW (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Now I understand, thank you all! Plaga med (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Upload free icons to Commons

Hi, I checked this URL [3] and found they are free to download, so is it possible to upload them to Commons? PS: some icons are really helpful for demonstrating content in Wikibooks or Wikiversity.  A l p h a m a  Talk 03:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Whats their license ? Free as in costs or free as in restrictions? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
https://home.streamlinehq.com/license-free
some are ccby4. dont know which sets are such. RZuo (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Now I can see their CC BY 4.0 license in some sets. For example, Freebies-freemojis is a free set and we only see the license when viewing the page source (A cute vector emoji set that you can use in your applications, websites or publications. Licensed under the Creative Commons - CC BY 4.0.).  A l p h a m a  Talk 11:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

PD-Venezuela and older works

Hello there. I've been asked to give a statement regarding the PD status of a 1950s official portrait of a Venezuelan president. I am not really sure if the final law cited in the PD-VenezuelaGov template applies retroactively. It says: "Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras (Labor Law), on May 7, 2012, Article 325. Intellectual products generated under an employment relationship in the public sector—or financed through public funds—that generates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, while maintaining the authors' rights to public recogniti"o Since this is a labor law, not a copyright or intellectual property law per se, I am not certain this applies retroactively. In the particular case, the pertinent template is PD-Venezuela as it only protects works for 60 years and it is in the public domain, safely, in Venezuela. However, for later works I'm not sure PD-VenezuelaGov could apply. Bedivere (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I work in the marketing department for a community college and I have been put in charge of making sure all of our public information is correct. I noticed that there are some needed changes to some of the data on the college's page, en:Doña Ana Community College, as well as the logo. That logo was never accurate. We have never used that color blue, and there have been some additional changes to the specifics of the logo itself, and I would like to upload a current, accurate version of the logo. However, the Wiki image process indicates that we cannot upload logos. How do I rectify this problem? Also, it has been many a year since I edited a Wiki page, under a different user account (I created this one for the college so others in my department could take over the role as needed), but I have read through the How-To section so I feel confident I can manage just fine. I just really want to get that logo updated, and I would also like to add a banner-type image of one of our campuses with mountains in the background. This image was taken by one of us in this department, using college equipment, so it automatically belongs to the school. How would I get around copyright infringement in this instance? Dona Ana CC (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The simplest way is to post any images you want to upload on the college's official website with a clear indication that those images are available under a free licence compatible with COM:L. You can then upload your images here and provide a link to your website when the upload form asks for the source of the image.
If the college is not the copyright owner, or you don't want to place the images on your website, you can use the COM:VRT process, which lets you submit permission to release under a suitable licence and proof of copyright ownership via email. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
@Dona Ana CC: do also make sure you read en:WP:COI before editing the English-language Wikipedia (which I presume is the one you mean by "the college's page"). As a person editing about your own employer, you need to make a disclosure before editing en-wiki, and there are certain limitations on what you can do there. (Not an issue for Commons, but just giving you a heads-up). - Jmabel ! talk 04:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
@Dona Ana CC: You make a request at en:Wikipedia:Files for upload and ask someone to upload the correct logo for the college as non-free content locally to English Wikipedia. In you're request, you should provide a link a website showing the correct logo and also a link to the article where you'd like the file to be used. If the logo isn't something completely different, it might even be possible for someone to simply update the currently used file (en:File:Dona Ana Community College logo - 2014.png) with a more accurate version of the logo. You will only be able to upload the file to Commons if you can get the copyright holder (assuming that's the college) to agree to release it under a license acceptable for Commons as explained in COM:L or the logo is considered to simple to eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law per en:threshold of originality. If you're unable to clearly demonstrate either of these two things, the logo should be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free. Finally, you posted I created this one for the college so others in my department could take over the role as needed above, but that's not something allowed per English Wikipedia policy as explained here. English Wikipedia accounts aren't allowed to be shared or passed on to others and you should be the only one using your account now and forever. If there comes a time, for whatever reason, that someone else replaces you in your position at the college, that person should create a new account for English Wikipedia and edit using it. Just for reference, you can use this account to also edit on English Wikipedia or any other Wikimedia Foundation project page if you want; you don't need to create a new account for each project, but only you should be using this account. However, your current username is a violation of English Wikipedia's username policy regarding promotional and implied shared use usernames; so, you will need to modify your username if you want to use this account to edit English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this Driver's License Photo PD?

So there has been a lot of postings of Nicole Brown Simpson's California Driver's Licence, which Getty Images also attributes it was released by the DMV. While I think that it could be PD-CAGov, I wanna know if The California DMV does claim copyright on old Licenses? I'm also a bit worried that the picture looks more like a digital release of the License instead of how the licenses looked in the early 90's (see here). Hyperba21 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

The photo appears to be from the DMV's copy, not the license itself, so that's not a concern. It appears to be PD-CAGov. I note that what is now section 12800.5(a)(2) of the California Vehicle Code (prohibiting distribution of the photo, making it not a public record, and therefore not PD) was passed in 1999 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/statute.html, chapter 489), and the photo (and release of the photo) is older than that. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
If so, should I put another licence tag aside PD-CaGov? Or just a note that pre-1999 Cali Licenses or Pictures are PD? Hyperba21 (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Upload a pic from ISUU.com

I wish to add a pic of Colonel Luigi Evangelisti that in 1870 was the commander of the gendarms of Pope Pio IX. I found it in a old (1920) text that is available here https://issuu.com/rivista.militare1/docs/il_brigantaggio_e2c5671ec6ba98 but I do not know if I am allowed. Thks for any help! PilotaDD (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is in the public domain. here is a copy which could be uploaded to Commons. I can't find the author's death date, but he could be him. I am nearly certain he is the same person, as per [4] and [5]. Not to be confused with someone of the same name who wrote about agriculture in the 1970s. Yann (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: Did you paste the right link there? PilotaDD links to "IL BRIGANTAGGIO E L'OPERA DELL'ESERCITO ITALIANO" (Rome, 1920) while you have linked to "Corpi volontari italiani dal 1848 al 1870" (Rome, 1921). From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
OOPS, right. But still probably the same person, unless we have a third author with the same name publishing in the same period, i.e. [6] and [7]. Yann (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Same author but different book. And the picture of Colonel Evangelisti is not there.9 PilotaDD (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Logo's copyright.

I got many warnings from my uploading file of companies' logos. If my deleted file such as File:Pavarie logo.svg; File:Expasa logo.svg ; File:Pasar logo.svg crosses the threshold of originality, then all works listed on Commons will be subject to deletion. So I think the decision was not appropriate. Luke atlas (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Luke atlas: Each country's threshhold of orignality isn't necessarily the same and in some cases those differences might be what determines whether a file is kept by Commons. Commons requires that the content it hosts be acceptably licensed under US copyright law and under the copyright law the country of first publication. The United States, for example, has a threshold of originality that's relatively high and requires a greater degree of creativity be exhibited for something to be eligible for copyright protection, than the UK does. So, there are many logos of UK origin that would be ineligible for copyright protection in the US but which are considered protected in the UK, and thus aren't OK for Commons. Since the files you're asking about have already been deleted, only a Commons administrator can see them. If you feel they were deleted by mistake, you can seek clarificaiton from the Commons administrator who deleted them. You can also seek a deletion review if you like. Please understand though that borderline case logos are often deleted as a precaution per COM:PCP, absent a clear community consensus they're OK for Commons. In those cases, you may want to consider uploading the logo locally to one of the various language Wikipedias if they permit non-free/fair use content to be uploaded and used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Assuming those logos are from Japan, just the fact that the design "shows creativity" is enough to make them eligible for copyright. Very low threshold. - Jmabel ! talk 09:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Чунер Михайлович Таксами.jpg

Is anyone able to verify the licensing of File:Чунер Михайлович Таксами.jpg? The source url is dead and I'm unable to find an archived version. The uploader has several file related notifications on their user talk page that resulted in files being deleted; so, this one might need a closer look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

An archived version of their rights page did mention CC0, though with Google Translate they also seem to have requested a link, and also no clue if the photo was actually taken by them (meaning did they have the rights to license it in the first place). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Photo from 1900

Am I right in thinking I can upload the photograph here https://geschichte.univie.ac.at/en/persons/alexius-meinong with the tag {{PD-Austria}}. I believe it was taken in 1900 by Carl Pietzner who died in 1927, but do I also need to know when it was first published before uploading? Shapeyness (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

{{PD-Austria}} is for "simple" photographs, not portrait photographs like this one. It's said to be from "Pietzner, Graz", so I doubt it's from Carl Pietzner himself, who was based in Vienna since 1895 (but owned several photo studios in other Austrian cities). The photo is said to be from 1900 though, so I think you can upload it with {{PD-old-assumed-expired}}. For studio photographs which are at least 120 years old we usually assume they were also published around that time unless we have knowledge of some fact which says otherwise. --Rosenzweig τ 10:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok thanks Rosenzweig. Shapeyness (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Images relating to state legislation, Australia

I would like to find out about uploading images (for a wikipedia article) relating to state legislation (on a particular topic) in Australia. The images are either individual pages of documents available but obscure, from the internet, or images of pages/maps not available on the internet, such as from the state archives. Reasons I'd like to be able to use them are that they would provide information that is (1) very difficult to find or cross-reference or (2) not available to the public if I were only to reference it. Cheyne (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

If the government documents have been published, they are copyrighted for 50 years from the publication in Australia. Unpublished documents are copyrighted in perpeturity. Ruslik (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
50 years from creation, actually, so we don't need to know about publication -- just that the Australian government would own the copyright. {{PD-AustraliaGov}}. If it's in government archives but created by non-government authors, that would not necessarily be the case, and copyright would have to expire by other means. There are not enough details given to answer the question though. It tends to matter a lot about who authored a work, and which country it was first published in (so we know which country's copyright laws to look at to see when it would expire). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@Cheyne: I answered your near-identical query where you first posted it, at Commons:Help desk#Images relating to state legislation, Australia. Please don't ask in multiple venues, as it crates extra work for our volunteers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Buenas ,una pregunta que pasaría si el logo en Venezuela es simple (ToO simple,por ejemplo el logo del Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela:File:Psuv (Venezuela) logo.svg) y si público un logo simple en Venezuela es posible agregará el {{PD-textlogo}} porque según el COM:Venezuela no dice nada del "Threshold of Originality" pero será posible agregar el template {{PD-textlogo}}?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Como no hay información del umbral de originalidad venezolano, no hay que ser tan astutos. Yo solo me guiaría por letras y figuras geométricas, a lo más una estrella, como el caso que ejemplificas, pero no más allá de eso. Bedivere (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bedivere:Gracias, por la opinión AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel:Buenas, dime una opinión con respecto a este tema?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
No conozco en tan detalle las leyes Venezolanos. - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Uploading a picture of a design object that is also useful

I would like to upload a new version of this image: de:Datei:Engler-geschirr.jpg

Because I took a picture of the same display recently and have it at a higher resolution.

Does this qualify as a "useful article", even though it is exhibited as a design object? Tomebuilder (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Per Commons:Overwriting existing files, you should upload your photo as a separate file. Whether those cups are protected by copyright (and not design rights) in Germany is anyone's guess; per de:Heike Wiechmann#Geburtstagszug-Urteil I think they are not. In the US, COM:UTIL should apply. --Rosenzweig τ 07:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

A large number of local flags and coats of arms do not have the correct copyright information.

For local flags or emblems, the copyright of these images belongs to the regional government. However, there are a large number of flags and coats of arms that are not labeled with correct copyright information, classifying the copyright information of these images as their own works.

Generally, the flags and heraldic images that can be uploaded are:

  • The government gives up its copyright claims or places it in the public domain as a "national symbol".
  • The designer of the flag or coat of arms died 70 years later.
  • A United States flag or coat of arms designed before February 28, 1989.
  • Coat of arms and flags designed after March 1, 1989, in California, Florida, and Massachusetts.
  • Some flags and coats of arms of the United Kingdom, Canada and other countries that have lost their crown copyright.
  • Flags and coats of arms whose designs are too simple to meet the threshold for copyright protection, such as the city flag of Spokane, Washington, may be protected by copyright, whereas the city's complex emblem may be protected by copyright.

In current practice, the following examples of authorizations comply with the regulations:

The following flags and coats of arms cannot be uploaded to commons as they are most likely to be protected by copyright:

However, the following examples show that these flags and coats of arms are not marked with correct copyright information, as listed below:

There is no room for sloppiness in the copyright licensing of flags and coats of arms. I hope the community will pay attention to it. Thank you! Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fumikas Sagisavas: What are your thoughts on {{CoA from blazon}}? From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a pretty common misconception. Each drawing of a seal can have its own copyright -- they are independent from the written description. See Commons:Coats of arms. So yes, one drawing can be "own work" by a contributor, a drawing from 100 years ago can be expired, and still other drawings can be under full copyright. The governments in question do not own the copyright of any drawing, unless done by one of their employees. The design is an idea, and each drawing a separate expression of that idea -- see Idea–expression distinction. Copyright protects only the specific expression, not the idea. If one drawing copies particular outlines etc. from another, then it is a derivative work (expression was copied), and the copyright status of the original matters. Any copyright in the written design is a literary work, and is based on the particular words chosen, which is the "expression". (Rewording an idea would also be a separate expression of the same idea.) A drawing pretty much cannot be derivative of a written work. (In most cases, the written design is part of law, and is PD-EdictGov in the U.S. anyways.) So in general, the date of a general design is not material to the copyright of a particular drawing. We avoid copying drawings from other places, as they could well have a copyright. Some countries may deny copyright to such drawings, but unsure that holds everywhere, or for privately-made drawings. For one example, en:File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is the official vector drawing of Canada's coat of arms. Even though the design dates from 1921, the particular drawing dates from 1994, and the vectorization is even newer (a vectorization can have a copyright on top of the original drawing). That is non-free, as it is protected by Crown Copyright. On the other hand, File:Royal Coat of arms of Canada.svg is on Commons, an independent drawing of the same design made by a contributor here. That one is correctly under a CC license as the copyright of the uploader. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Files from Taiwan Cultural Memory Bank

From 2023-11-23 07:05 to 2023-11-24 17:26, KOKUYO uploaded around 900 files about the Golden Horse Awards hosted on Taiwan Cultural Memory Bank (TCMB) from various photographers (mostly from Central News Agency). It appears at the time of upload, all of them were marked with PDM (eg. this link). However, at some point TCMB decided to change their license to CC-BY-ND-3.0 (eg. the same picture from the current link).

So, is it correct to conclude that their PDM marking at the beginning is voided after the license change, and the files should not be hosted on Commons? As this would be a large-scale deletion if a deletion request had to be opened, I'd like to consult opinions from more sources.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@KOKUYO: Notifying uploader.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
確實如你所說，他們在我上傳完之後，資料庫就突然更改了照片授權。上次有一張照片有被提刪，我那時候就有說如果不能留的話，那就要把該分類同類型照片全數刪除，但我本來以為上次就已經批量刪除了。如果確定這個授權是可以從開放轉變成不開放，那也就只好批量刪除了。--～～～～
上次就是我提刪的（雖然好像你沒有這樣回答？），當時還不知道背後居然有接近900多張圖片這麽多就是了。目前先咨詢一下我的見解是否正確然後再確定進一步的行動。廣九直通車 (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Screenshot taken from video found on the US Library of Congress' official website

Would en:File:JoyWilliamsLOC2021.jpeg uploaded to English Wikipedia as non-free content be acceptable for Commons under a {{PD-USGov-LOC-created}} license? The screenshot comes from an interview posted on the LOC's official YouTube channel. The YouTube file is released under the standard YouTube license, but the same interview can be found here of the LOC's official website. There's a boilerplate licensing statement on the LOC's page that states

While the Library of Congress created most of the videos in this collection, they include copyrighted materials that the Library has permission from rightsholders to present. Rights assessment is your responsibility. The written permission of the copyright owners in materials not in the public domain is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions.

Any opinions on whether this screenshot is PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Original source is https://www.loc.gov/item/webcast-9956 Copyright information there is:

While the Library of Congress created most of the videos in this collection, they include copyrighted materials that the Library has permission from rightsholders to present. Rights assessment is your responsibility. The written permission of the copyright owners in materials not in the public domain is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions. There may also be content that is protected under the copyright or neighboring-rights laws of other nations. Permissions may additionally be required from holders of other rights (such as publicity and/or privacy rights). Whenever possible, we provide information that we have about copyright owners and related matters in the catalog records, finding aids and other texts that accompany collections. However, the information we have may not be accurate or complete.

Yann (talk) 11:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Chris Sharma Petzl video

I found a video on Commons of a famous rock climber Chris Sharma by equipment manufacturer Petzl here File:Chris Sharma - BACK in Céüse - Sport climbing and bolting in France.webm. Petzl have done excellent quality climbing vides that they license freely such as on youtube here and here. However this Chris Sharma video is also on Petzl's website here, but it is not clear what the licensing is? It is also on Petzl's youtube feed here but it is not listed as freely licensed? I would love to use stills from this video on various Chris Sharma Wikipedia articles, but there is not point if the original licensing is suspect? Aszx5000 (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

File:American way of life.jpg

Hi, This is a great image, but I have some doubt about the copyright claim. If it was renewed, should it be by Margaret Bourke-White or by Life? Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like Margaret Bourke-White was an employee, so Life would have held the copyright as a work for hire (or Time, Inc.). Their issues were supposed to have been renewed per UPenn. The Feb 15 1937 issue was registered (B329224) and renewed on July 21 1964 (R342567).[8] If it was published separately without notice it may be OK but we'd probably need some evidence. Looks like it was originally uploaded as "own work" but changed to no-notice a few years ago, but no description as to why. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I found the issue where it was published: Life, February 15th, 1937, p.9. She doesn't seem to be credited if that matters. So Commons:Deletion requests/File:American way of life.jpg‎. Yann (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Generalstabsarzt Dr. med. Ralf Hoffmann als Chef des Stabes Kommando Sanitätsdienst der Bundeswehr.jpg

Hello everyone, is the image in question in the public domain and can it really be uploaded here? For me, the paragraph under which the image has supposedly been uploaded (§ 5 Urheberrechtsgesetz) does not refer to images, but only to published legal texts and regulations in Germany. I would be very grateful for an assessment from someone who is familiar with this. --Godihrdt (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right, this is not an official work and not in the public domain. Thank you for reporting the problem; I've filed a deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Generalstabsarzt Dr. med. Ralf Hoffmann als Chef des Stabes Kommando Sanitätsdienst der Bundeswehr.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 13:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Even if I think it's a pity, it still refers to other pictures:
They are also under the same licence that they are considered to be in the public domain because they are publications of the Bundeswehr. Of course, it would be good if you could continue to use them under a different licence instead of deleting them but I don't see any possibility at the moment. Godihrdt (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I have now submitted these images for deletion; many are from the sadly deceased user Mehlauge, which hasn't stopped the bot from macabrely informing the user of each and every request... Godihrdt (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Good morning

I took several pictures and I do not know how to license them. In general, I am the copyright holder. Is it possible after the administration has decided to license these pictures?

Category:Abdel Naser Abdel Fatah

Paula Fenness (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Paula Fenness: Please see the information given on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Currently viewing. Paula Fenness (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Early Mickey Mouse intertitles

Hello there! I have found File:Title - The Mad Doctor.png is in the public domain as it was not renewed. The intertitle/title card is the same used in many early Mickey Mouse cartoons. Since this design is already public domain, could I upload the other ones (only title differs)? I have already done that for the 1929 intertitles which are essentially the same as those of 1928 (category:Mickey Mouse intertitles) Bedivere (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I think these intertitles are public domain, only changing their title. I will upload them later. The worst that could happen is getting them deleted Bedivere (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Emergency Broadcast System

Hello, I'm looking to upload videos from television in the 20th century about the Emergency Broadcast System, I'm curious what the copyright status is of recordings like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m9cIdlXyao

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQrC1V5TMlU

Are these in the public domain (made by US Gov) or are the property of the TV stations?

Thanks! Victorgrigas (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking just at the first one: probably created by the TV station; probably not up to the U.S. threshold of originality in any respect, so I'd guess they are in the public domain on that basis. I'm not sure we have a tag for sub-TOO videos, can anyone suggest one? - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Cofradía Botillo OTRS

There are some pics in Category:Botillo that do not have a proper OTRS attribution:

Derivative pictures:

-- Carnby (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Presumably User:FCPB is someone from Foro Cultural Provincia de El Bierzo. But, yes they should go through VRT (formerly OTRS) and explain how they come to control the copyright on the materials they are licensing. FCPB, do you have any problem doing that? - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Por supuesto, User:FCPB es una persona del Foro Cultural Provincia de El Bierzo. Pero, sí debe enviar e-corroe al equipo VRT (ex-OTRS) para explicar como pasaba que el (o ella) controlla los derechos del autor pare las materias para cuales ofrecen una licencia. FCPB, ¿hay algún problema en hacerlo? - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Posting PD images from websites with Terms of Use that state "no commercial use"

I notice the Commons has many PD images attributed to Worthpoint.com (some by me). However, is it permissible to post images found on websites with Terms of Use that forbid commercial use? Worthpoint's Terms of Use state: 'WorthPoint grants you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, single-member license to access and use the content on the websites, the Price Guide, Marks, and/or any related mobile applications, and the services for personal research purposes only. Under no circumstances shall you use any content (except content submitted by you) for any commercial use. “Commercial Use” means any use that yields a profit or monetizes in any way the use of the content. Online or other republication of content is prohibited.' Clearly, posting on the Commons does not constitute commercial use. But what if someone uses such an image, believing it is free of any restrictions, for commercial purposes? Bixly777 (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends on whether the source website is recording the licence correctly (many sites apply more restrictive terms than they can enforce). If the files are definitely public domain then we can ignore the copyright restrictions the website tries to impose. If, however, the files are not public domain then it is possible that the website's restriction do apply. Any files that can't meet the requirements of COM:L must be deleted. If you can link to some example images, we can take a look. From Hill To Shore (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the licence ?

Hello, I work actually on the first Nightwish's albums and I've found this [picture]. I would like to know what is the licence and if it is okay for Wikipédia ? Thank you in advance Vmv2705 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vmv2705: Artist xuvi lives in Finland, which joined the Berne Convention 1 April 1928 per COM:FINLAND, so their work is copyrighted. The original YouTube poster's account has been terminated. So barring permission via VRT, we can't accept it on Commons but see en:WP:F.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

CAN I? Sdcardp2 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sdcardp2: absolutely no idea. Can you link to what you are talking about so that someone has a chance to answer your question accurately? - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Templates "PD-US-no notice" and "PD-US-1978-89" for old newspapers

I wanted to clarify how the templates "PD-US-no notice" (This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice.) and "PD-US-1978-89" (This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years.) work in regard to copyright notices. They are used for the images [9] and [10], both of which are images published in old newspapers. There is no copyright notice on the page of the images or on any of the other pages in the newspaper. To me, it seems that they should be in public domain but I wanted to confirm since I have not worked with these templates before. This is being discussed at [11]. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: Replied in the linked discussion. You should probably indicate there that you have canvassed here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! I left a link there to the discussion here. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Image of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad

I want to upload an image of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad but I am unaware if this is able to be put on Wikimedia Commons per licensing. The link here is the official website of the High Commission and contains images of the high commission building. MrGreen1163 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@MrGreen1163: That page has a copyright notice and no indication of any free-licensing at all. Why do you think these images might be eligible for Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 01:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Saugata Roy MP.jpg

This isn't {{PD-US}}. Is it {{GODL-India}}, or something else, or a copyvio? (I don't know much about GODL-India, hence my coming here...) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be {{GODL-India}}, which should also make it PD in the U.S., so OK for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 22:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Trying to understand why this image is not copyrighted

Hi there, I came across a renaming request for this file, and I'm trying to understand why this image would be PD. There's a fair amount of license text, but strikes me as odd that such an image would be released like that. Milliped (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Before the U.S. joined the Berne Convention in March 1989, they required a copyright notice to be placed on each distributed copy of a work, otherwise copyright would be lost. While that is a somewhat nervous here given the Smiths are a British band, and Paul Cox is a British photographer, the publicity photo was distributed by Sire Records, a U.S. company. The country of origin is the country of first publication, so unless there was a previous publication of that photo outside the US, it is public domain in the U.S. It is definitely still copyrighted in the UK, and most if not all of Europe. Most of the permission text is not relevant, as it refers to generalities and not specifically why this photo is PD, but the copyright tag does state the only way it could be public domain. You could try to regain copyright by registering the work among other steps, but I don't find a record for this photo (I do see one photo registered by Paul Cox, and a number of registrations by Sire Records Company, but not this one). The file File:The Smiths (1984 Sire publicity photo) 001.jpg, a similar publicity photo, does contain some text which states that a copyright search was done (though does not mention the names searched for); that could be helpful to add here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Milliped Many old Publicity photographs are Public Domain in the USA due to old copyright formalities. Studios / companies didn't tend to put notices on to these photos which were sent out to media organizations to promote a subject. They wanted these photos to go far and wide and were happy to see them re-published in newspapers and such. In this case, Sire Records, an American record label had released these photos of The Smiths to promote one of their albums. Because the photo did not include a copyright notice or registration within 5 years, it fell into the Public Domain in the USA. This was common for music & television publicity photos up until around 1985 when notices really started showing up. You can find some stuff before & after that year which did and didn't include notices. 1985 is just the year where it seems most companies became more aware of Copyright rules. If any evidence can be found it was first published in the UK or was registered, of course then it would change things. Currently there is no evidence of such. I hope this helps to clarify. PascalHD (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
"first published in the UK" would have to be at least 30 days before U.S. publication, because otherwise they are considered simultaneous. - Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Should this be a SD|F1 instead?

I submitted this [12]on April 13th. The mascot was copyrighted by the Atlanta Olympic Committee. See page 130 of the linked Olympic Report. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ooligan: Which "this"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, @Jeff G., the DR is above now. -- Ooligan (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Since the issue you've raised is the possibility that the file is a derivative work of non-free content, the appropriate speedy deletion process for an obvious instance of non-free derivative work would be F3, not F1, except F3 specifically says not to use it for photographs taken in a public place. Choosing to use a DR was the right choice. Due to the current backlog of DRs, it might take a few more weeks before your DR is processed. —RP88 (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed explanation @RP88. Best Regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Where can I find the Title of Images (in the Context of Attribution)

Pre-version-4.0 CC licenses require the use of the image title as part of the attribution line. I therefore have a question:

What is the "title" of images on Wikimedia Commons?

Consider, for example, this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:61-0324_Boeing_KC-135R_Stratotanker_take_off_March_ARB_020323.jpg

Is the title simply the file name "File:61-0324 Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker take off March ARB 020323.jpg"?

The image was originally sourced from Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kitmasterbloke/52829907803

Here, the title is explicit: "61-0324 Boeing KC-135R Stratotanker take off March ARB 020323" Michael Weinold (talk) 05:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If the file name really is the title - is it legitimate to shorten it? Some images have rather lengthy filenames:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EGUN_-_Boeing_KC-135R_Stratotanker_-_United_States_Air_Force_-_60-0344_D_(30333795298).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Weinold (talk • contribs) 05:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Summary box with links

File:LakeMohonkTennis.jpg This image is used in the WP article "Paul Martin (illustrator)." I wrote all of the description's text. Is it correct how the image from Wayback Machine is in the slot "Other versions." Its purpose is as a backup. Also, is it correct how the "Vintage postcard" was inserted in the author line. It shows just how the tennis courts looked when the photo was originally taken. The same footbridge is in both at the far left edge (hard to spot). Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for uploading this image! I rearranged it a bit to where I would have put that information; feel free to revert if you prefer your previous arrangement. Felix QW (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
@Felix QW: Okay, but I don't spot any changes. The reason that the last part in Author is put in that spot is because of the tie-in to the word "footbridge." For simplicity. I wonder if that URL link in "Other Info" would be more complete in the long version.
Namely, https://web.archive.org/web/20220104054623/https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51835959831_9b5a50b086_h.jpg JimPercy (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have forgotten to submit the changes. I would not have put the additional information in the author field, but it is absolutely no big deal. I'd say, if you think it makes sense there, just leave it where it is. Felix QW (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks for looking at it. I will leave it as is (with those changes). Oh, I was just guessing what you might want to change (re: author field extension). JimPercy (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
@Felix QW: Update. I made a couple adjustments. I think, as was suggested. JimPercy (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

How can I verify that a Wikimedia Commons image is public domain and freely licensed?

I wish to use this Wikimedia Commons image File:Battle-of-Ager-Sanguinis.jpg on the cover of my forthcoming book. The publisher requires me to verify that this image is in the public domain and freely licensed. The above web page says that the image was uploaded by Asta at Russian Wikipedia and transferred to Commons by nettadi. However, Asta does not seem to have a public talk page or an e-mail address and nettadi’s talk page has a single message to him from an editor. Any assistance you may be able to offer will be greatly appreciated. Groucho777 (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Groucho777: Hi,
This artwork was created in the 12th century, long before copyright came to exist. So it is in the public domain, and creating a copy of a 2D artwork doesn't create a new copyright. So you can use it for your book. Yann (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This is a painting from 1337 and therefore definitely public domain. If you would want to have a proof that the file uploaded to commons is the actual one form the book you would have to ask the French National Library. GPSLeo (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
No bearing on the copyright question but: if it is claimed both as 1337 & 12th Century, something is wrong and should be fixed. - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The 12th century line was added today. @Yann: Did you mean 14th century here or do you have a source placing this in the 1100s? From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok, fixed. I suppose that the date in the French description was wrong. There was a confusion between the date of the event and the date of the artwork. Yann (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

1934 painting by Georgia O'Keeffe

File:19 - ofty8zO (50062828047).jpg, transferred from Flickr where it was uploaded with a bogus CC licence, is actually a 1934 painting by American painter Georgia O'Keeffe, titled Purple Hills Ghost Ranch - 2 / Purple Hills No II per [13]. I'm not sure, is this copyrighted in the US, or is it some kind of PD-no-notice/-not-renewed? I couldn't find it with a quick search at [14], but would like to make sure if we can keep the file or need to delete it for a few more years. --Rosenzweig τ 21:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Same for File:64 - YZ9s7jg (50062578451).jpg, a 1939 painting by O'Keeffe titled White Bird of Paradise per [15]. --Rosenzweig τ 21:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
There is also the issue of publication; Regarding the 1934 painting, its early exhibitions were:
1935 New York (An American Place), nos. 27 or 28, as Red Hill form--Bad Lands, New Mexico
1936 New York (An American Place), no. 7, as Dark Hills, Ghost Ranch, New Mexico
1938 Williamsburg ?
1988 Phoenix, no. 22
So if it was not catalogued with a reproduction, it would have to have been exhibited without any steps taken to prevent copying for it to count as publication. Felix QW (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
The second painting linked was only exhibited once at An American Place in 1940, and then not exhibited again until 2009 (https://collections.okeeffemuseum.org/object/1148/#about-this-object-details).
It seems from the MoMa records of other O'Keeffe paintings as if the "An American Place" exhibitions were not catalogued, and took place in a commercial gallery, so it is conceivable that they were not "published" until after formalities had been abolished.
Indeed, the link posted above from the print shop gives a 2009 copyright date for the White Bird of Paradise and a 1997 copyright date for the 1934 painting, and that does seem plausible to me. In that case, the paintings would be copyrighted until 2056. Felix QW (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Displaying an artwork in a commercial gallery usually means that is being offered to the public for purchase, which makes it an act of publication. Toohool (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Good point! I always thought that copies would have to have been offered rather than merely the original, but COM:Publication does mention that sale of the original would be sufficient. @Clindberg: Do you have any insight that could help with this situation? I usually refer to your posts whenever there is a complex question of early US publication... Felix QW (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems that these two paintings were sold by Alfred Stieglitz' An American Place Gallery in New York in the 1930s (or 1940), and therefore might be in the public domain (in the US) as I could not find a registration for copyright. So we can probably keep the files. --Rosenzweig τ 20:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Beach scene - the foreshore

File:Beach scene - the foreshore, © Britten Pears Arts.jpg

What do we make of the above? It's an embroidery by a UK citizen who died in 1943. Is it sufficiently flat to be considered "2D"? It also incudes a frame and the file name incudes "©". Do we need permission from the photographer? Or simply to crop out the frame and rename? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The embroidery would probably be classed as a "work of artistic craftsmanship" (see COM:FOP UK). My view of the frame is that it is rather utilitarian in nature and not subject to its own copyright. The photographer will have a copyright though as they chose the angle at which to shoot the frame and embroidery (which may have produced shadows under different lighting conditions). From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing UK-wise, I think this is fine. The frame seems utilitarian. The photograph appears to not be copyrightable under UK law as stated in Sheridan: it is not the "author’s own intellectual creation"; and it is shot head-on (so I don't see any creative choices being made). The UK copyright of the embroidery itself expired in 2014.
US-wise, I think it's problematic. The frame and photo are both fine. But the embroidery itself is likely still copyrighted until 95 years after publication (so 2027, if we assume the work was immediately published). The only situation where it would be in the public domain in the US now is if it was published in the US within 30 days of publication in the UK, and the US publication failed to comply with the required formalities. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Limiting the question to Is it sufficiently flat to be considered "2D"? - I'd be inclined to say that it is. This work is no more three-dimensional than an impasto oil painting; there isn't any meaningful creative work involved in photographing it. Omphalographer (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

WW2 copyright status

I was wodering about coyright status of postcards published durig the World War 2. For example: a postcard published in the town of, let's say, Třinec that in the early 1939 was a part of Poland, later that year was unilaterally incorporated into Germany during the war, and since 1945 belonged to the Czechoslovakia (now Czechia). Should I apply current German copyright law (70 years since anonymous publication; {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}}), Polish, as the annexation was not universally recognised (no clear copyright claim made before 1994: {{PD-Poland}}/{{PD-PRL}}), Czech (50 years since anonymous publication: {{PD-anon-70-CZ}}), Czechoslovak ({{PD-Czechoslovakia-anon}}) or something else? Every possible way indicates that the anonymous postcards will be in the public domaine but I still have to apply one licencing template and I don't know which one. Aʀvєδuι + 07:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not apply all three? You can add an explanation for reusers about the unusual copyright situation and then show them all three templates to demonstrate it is PD regardless of the European jurisdiction. However, have you considered US copyright? Postcards published in 1945 may have US copyright protection until 1 January 2041. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The relevant copyright law is generally the modern jurisdiction of the place of first publication. In this case, it would have been PD in the Czech Republic in 1996 due to the validity of the 50-year term of Czechoslovak law. This makes it PD in the US. It is presently in the public domain in the Czech republic per {{PD-anon-70-CZ}} (or {{PD-anon-70-EU}} — I am actually not sure why we have a separate Czech template for this). So to me, the correct combination would be {{PD-Czechoslovakia-anon}} and either of the two templates linked above. Felix QW (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
{{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} is completely wrong, that is not for random postcards, but only for works "published by a legal entity under public law". Which are not as common as many people seem to think. --Rosenzweig τ 00:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Valid License Template

I want to upload a portrait from the NPG in London. It if freely available using the license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 DEED Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported If I try uploading the file, the range of licenses to choose from doesn't include this one. If I try to enter my own description of the license I get an error message saying that "The wikitext you entered doesn't contain a valid license template." Can anyone please tell me what I should enter? Jgdc47B (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jgdc47B: That is a licence we can't accept. Per COM:L images uploaded here must be available for commercial reuse and also allow derivatives. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jgdc47B: What's the URL of the NPG page about the image? The have a habit of applying licences to out-of-copyright artworks, so the image may be PD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
It's https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp132030/reginald-campbell-thompson Jgdc47B (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
As From Hill To Shore says above, we cannot accept the NC-ND license, but if the work is by an author who died before 1954 AND was published before 1929, we can accept it as public domain. Abzeronow (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that very useful info. Unfortunately the work was published in 1934. Jgdc47B (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
It's also by Walter Stoneman who died in 1958 so it's not public domain in the UK until 2029. It can uploaded to Commons in 2030. Abzeronow (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jgdc47B: See also the justification for this at COM:LJ.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/04&oldid=875865601"