Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/03

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

File:Lucien Thévet.jpg

I'm wondering about this photo. It was uploaded about a month ago, but it's description states it was taken in 1975. The quality is quite poor and it looks like a scan that was uploaded. It could be an old family photo and the individual pictured apparently died in 2007. The subject was born in 1914 which means he would be in his 60's when the photo was taken so it looks about right timewise. Can good faith just be assumed here since the photo is not showing up in a Google image search or should OTRS verification be required. The uploader is claiming "own work", but that might just because they uploaded the photo and not because they actually took the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: As the global account is a single purpose account less than 2 months old, I don't think we can assume the user knows their way around Commons to understand the licensing system. As a starting point before invoking OTRS, I'd advise trying to engage with them to see if they can confirm they were the original artist. Unfortunately they appear to be resident on the French wiki and I can speak French only slightly better than a baby. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this From Hill To Shore. I've posted a note on the uploader's user talk page asking for clarification about the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Montreal Expos baseball cap 1969-1991.jpg

Is this photo OK as licensed or should it be treated as a derivative work? The cap imagery itself is probably utilitarian enough to be considered not eligible for copyright per COM:CB#Clothing, but the logo appearing on the cap may not be. The team/cap logo for the en:Montreal Expos has been uploaded to English Wikipedia as en:File:MontrealExposcap2004.png and is licensed as non-free content. If this is not the case, then fine; if, howver, the "Meb" logo is considered protected by copyright per COM:TOO Canada, then any photos showing it (like File:Montreal Expos baseball jersey 1969-1991.jpg and maybe File:Expos banner Forum.JPG) need to be assessed/reassessed. It's hard to argue de minimis or incidental here since the logo is the main focus of the photos; either not showing it or blurring it out would completely change the photos. A photo like File:Andres galarraga2002.jpg, on the other hand, might be easier to argue de minimis for since the focus is mainly on the player, not the logo. Anyway, if the "Meb" logo is copyrightable, then I'm not sure any photos focusing on the it as the primary element should be kept per COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the logo is not DM and the file should have justification for why the logo is free. COM:TOO Canada says "OK for most logos", though I find the ruling provided on that page to be rather stricter than the US and I would think the logo is above the Canadaian TOO. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
If the logo is PD per COM:TOO Canada, then it would most likely also be PD per COM:TOO United States, which in turn would mean the local file uploaded to Wikipedia would really not need to be licensed as non-free content and could instead be moved to Commons. If that's the case, then all the issues with the local file would go away since the would no longer be subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Screenshot Backpage 13.04.2018.png

Is this screenshot of Backpage you're looking for? This webpage with the seizure notice (including the logo, which is possibly doesn't meet threshold of originality) is in the public domain by the US government, something for de minimis work. Unfortunately, this screenshot is not in the public domain (without the seizure notice) associated with this file only on Wikipedia. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're referring to but en:File:Backpage screenshot.png is not copyrightable. A simple list of cities does not cross the threshold of originality, and the text logo is similarly too simple. {{PD-ineligible}} and {{PD-text logo}} would apply to all non-Federal Government content here. --Animalparty (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Photos published in a book

I've been asked whether it is acceptable to upload a scanned page of a book. The page in question contains four photographs (and nothing else), and was published in India in 1948. As far as I understand it, the book in question is still under copyright (the author died in 1965, and the 60 years pma have not expired yet), but I'm wondering whether the photos might not be in the public domain. In India, the copyright term of photos apparently extends for 60 years after publication (as indicated in the text of {{PD-India}}). So, is the term of the book irrelevant in this case? Uanfala (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with Indian copyright law, but in most jurisdictions the copyright for the photograph normally rests with the photographer. The photographer would normally give the book author a license to reuse their images (though there could also be a complication of transferring ownership of the copyright). Does the book identify who the photographer was? From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
When starting this thread, my assumption was that the question I'm asking is whether the publishing of the book counts as an action of publishing the photographs in it (which is, now that I've put it into words, a silly thing to be asking — of course publishing photos in a book is an act of publishing those photos). Now, as far as Indian law is concerned (or at least what I've learned about it from the help pages here), 60 years have passed since those photos were published so they're in the public domain. But now your question seems to imply – correct me if I'm wrong – that the photos need to be out of copyright both in India (which they apparently are) and in the US (for which we need to take into consideration the creators of those photos). Is that right? Uanfala (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, works on Commons need to be public domain in both the country of origin and the United States, per COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law. As for needing to know information about the creator, it depends on the date of publication (see COM:HIRTLE, specifically the section on works first published outside the United States). For something published abroad in 1948, the general copyright term in the United States is 95 years after publication unless the work was public domain in the source country on the date the Uruguay Round Agreements Act took effect. For India, that date is January 1, 1996 (according to en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Dates of restoration and terms of protection). COM:INDIA says that photographs created before 1958 were protected for 50 years after creation ({{PD-India-photo-1958}}). 50 years after 1948 is 1998, meaning the photographs were still copyrighted in India when the URAA took effect, assuming the year of creation and publication is the same. Unless it can be shown that the photographs were actually taken before 1945 (so that they would have already been public domain in India by 1996) or that they or the book containing them were published in the United States within 30 days and failed to follow the appropriate formalities (such as including a copyright notice and renewing the copyright in the 28th year), then the photos are copyrighted in the US until 2044. clpo13(talk) 01:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Photo album from 1934 with UK PD

Hi. I have come across some files by Lady Evelyn Hilda Stuart Moyne, which I have placed into Category:Lady Evelyn Hilda Stuart Moyne. They are part of a collection of 204 photos taken in 1933 and 1934 and given to the National Portrait Gallery in London in 2014.[1] Lady Moyne is identified as the creator of most of the photos and marked as "possibly" the creator of the rest by NPG. As she died in 1939 they are definitely PD in the UK (and were PD at the time of donation to the gallery). Two of the images were uploaded by one user with licences of PD Art,[2][3] while the third was uploaded by another user with an incorrect creative commons licence.[4] According to her husband's article at en:Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne they were on a social cruise around the Mediterranean for much of the time, and the photos resemble holiday snaps rather than intentional pieces of art. Is it valid to use the PD Art tag now that they have been adopted by the National Portrait Gallery? If not, are there any alternative claims we can use to support PD in the US, given that they appear to have first been published in 2014? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Unpublished works by authors who died in 1939 became public domain in the US in 2010. (that's if they were unpublished until 2014). Abzeronow (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)@From Hill To Shore: if they were first published in 2014, then use {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Works first published after 2002, even non-US works, are public domain in the US after the creator has been dead 70 years. clpo13(talk) 17:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
There may be a 25-year publication right in the UK, but if unpublished until 2014, there is no U.S. issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Didym and his rollbacks

I would like to have second opinion: is there a reason to rollback speedy deletion request of a blatant copyvio (Commons:SPEEDY#F3:Derivative works based on non-free content (such as screenshots of non-free content)). Thanks, VLu (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best page for the discussion but I'd say it was the right decision to take it to DR. You claimed it was taken from a TV show but there is no evidence of that. If you had a link to an official screenshot of the show that was a close match then the evidence for speedy could probably be met. Without obvious evidence, the slower route is best. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
From Hill To Shore, thank you. Have you looked at the picture closely? There are obvious distortions when shooting a TV screen on a phone, traces of a television scan and a viewing time cursor at the bottom. --VLu (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@VLu: Yes, I noticed the distortions but I am not qualified enough to say if that was due to taking a photo of a TV screen or if it was a defective camera/out of focus photo of the live event. I don't think we can hold Commons Administrators to the standard of forensic photo examiners, so the slower path is more correct. You can make these arguments in the deletion discussion and an admin may speedy delete before the closing deadline if they are convinced by your case. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe that the administrator should first of all be polite and explain the motives of his actions instead of rollbacking good faith edits as if it were some kind of vandalism. --VLu (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd suggest discussing it with the admin directly on their talk page. I always advise editors to not take things personally and have a calm chat about things. Commons has users from all around the world, so there will often be culture clashes. One person's politeness is another person's insult. In most cases talking to each other clears up the misunderstanding and allows both sides to continue being productive editors. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not Christian enough to turn the left cheek to someone slapping on the right one. That's why I look for mediation. --VLu (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that you turn the other cheek, I am suggesting that you talk to the other editor about your concerns and then listen to their explanation. That is the first step to dispute resolution. If you think the issue is serious enough to need intervention, then you can take the matter to the admin noticeboard (though if it is just the edit of the one file that is the source of the problem, you are unlikely to get a positive reaction for escalating the issue so quickly). In any case, your issue is not a copyright problem, so this isn't the right board to continue discussing it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
@VLu, you choose the completely wrong venue for your complaint and you did not even notify the user you are complaining about, which is not a question of being Christian, but of being fair and not talking behind one's back.
If one has a complaint about another user and considers it to be serious enough to be escalated, instead of trying to solve it directly with the other user, COM:ANU is the right board. However, as User:From Hill To Shore already told you, your issue isn't really worth it. Sure, instead of using rollback, a revert and adding a rationale for the revert to the edit-summary might have been better, though the result would be identical. But, there is not the slightest evidence that Didym did that to anger you. We admins have to do a lot of repetitious tasks and, as our time is limited as with other unpaid volunteers, we try to take the shortest path, which sometimes may be too short.
In addition, though it may be a judgement call, IMO it was justified in this case to stick with the earlier started regular DR (instead of a speedy), as a lot (or most) of this new user's uploads seem to be problematic, in order to educate him/her, as he/she is likely not ill-willed, but uninformed. That doesn't mean your copyvio-tagging was wrong. However, putting your copyvio-suspicion into the running DR would have been slightly better in this case. --Túrelio (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I’m not talking behind someone's back - I’ve placed an active hyperlink to his userpage, so he has definitely got a notification. Isn’t that enough? --VLu (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
As Túrelio wrote yesterday, this was just an attempt to minimize the waste of time on both sides. The information of this file being a clear copyvio should be in the DR and thererfore available to the administrator deciding on this DR, and not on the file page. Actually, there are almost no cases where a speedy deletion of a file already nominated for deletion is justified. --Didym (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Didym, please show me the policy, where your no cases where a speedy deletion of a file already nominated for deletion is justified is stated clearly or admit this is your misbelief. --VLu (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Didym: Thank you, this was a clear and well-reasoned reply. No more questions. --VLu (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Simple question about logos

I was wandering around and I found this image. This is a company logo. My question is very simple: Is it ok to publish it here? I mean, this is an essential part of a company's visual identity and, for sure, it's copyrighted and, I don't think the uploader holds its copyright, despite bearing the company's name (an obvious case of COI). Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: I would say that that does not meet the threshold of originality for Brazil. So no, it is not copyrighted. It certainly isn't {{Own}} work but it is {{PD-textlogo}}. Brazil has a more complicated threshold (see COM:TOO Brazil) but that really is quite simple. Every country has a level at which something "gains" copyright. This is so people can't just put together something ridiculously simple and block others from using it for an extended period of time. It may be trademarked which is a completely different and distinct section of intellectual property law but it is not copyrighted. Since copyright is all we really care about here it is ok to host here. --Majora (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Majora: Your answer was just outstanding good. Thank you. But now I'm very curious about the difference between copyright and trademark. I mean, can anyone use the McDonald's or the Coca Cola logo, for example? I'm asking just out of curiosity since your answer really instigated me.--SirEdimon (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@SirEdimon: First please note that I am not a lawyer so anything after this should be read in that vein. It is also rather hard to speak in generalities when it comes to describing these things but I'm happy to try. A trademark is a way to distinguish a thing in a certain field of commerce. It was primarily created to avoid customer confusion. So if you are shopping at a food establishment that has a yellow M you can be sure you are eating at a McDonalds and not a McFakey. You probably also won't see any restaurant using a yellow W because it would be confusing to the customer. Trademark protection is indefinite as long as the company is using that mark to signify their object. A copyright is protection against the reproduction of something (you and only you have the right to copy that thing). A copyright eventually expires which releases that thing into the "public domain" which allows other to copy that thing, remix it, and rerelease it as something new. Since the two are different sections of intellectual property law something can have one and not the other, or both at the same time. The chart at the bottom of https://www.copyrighted.com/blog/difference-copyright-patent-trademark has a nice break down summary of the difference between the two, and also includes Patents for good measure. --Majora (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@Majora: Thanks. It really helped me. You were great. Thank you.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

statement

I wonder, a statement in a website that says: files in this page are free to use without a credit. Does it's enough to say CC0? M. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 119.245.83.130 (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

UK jewelry 1939 demin

In 1939 a diamond maple leaf brooch was made for the Queen Mother. Would any images isolating the brooch from a copyrighted image be considered demin? What were the copyright laws on jewelry in the UK in 1939 as to publishing images of unique works?--96.55.104.236 17:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Website "arthipo" distributing many images without attribution

The website https://www.arthipo.com/all-posters-buy-sales/ sells posters. A lot of the images that it offers are apparently taken from Commons, and they never give attribution to the photographer. They very likely don't have the right to distribute those images without an attribution, definitely not in the case of my photos. Here are a few examples.

I am not suggesting any specific action at this point, I'd just like to record this fact. However, if some of you want to bring the site down, you may try to start from [25], which is a poster of a 2012 Disney film, since Disney is known to enforce their copyrights actively.

– b_jonas 20:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it is easier to change the license of my images to CC0? That way I avoid a legal battle --Wilfredor (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Wilfredor: That is up to you, but I would advise against letting people steal your work, or changing your license merely to avoid inconveniencing thieves. Would you give a mugger your bank account number after he stole your wallet? --Animalparty (talk)
I don't think that avoids a legal battle. You are not required to pursue your copyright when it's violated. There are some cases when I ignore certain uses of my photos without permission too. – b_jonas 21:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
You can't be forced into a legal battle without your permission in most cases. Nobody here can legally force this site to take down your pictures without your permission. Chess (User talk:Chess) Please ping when replying. 23:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Supposedly, arthipo is distributing works by "artists". Thus, it could be a problem of users abusing the platform by uploading images by third parties as their own work and profiting from them. Platonides (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe they accept submissions by artists. But the photographers aren't mentioned anywhere (the painters for paintings are). More importantly, their gallery looks like it's heavily curated, containing mostly high quality images (notwithstanding that the tiger slipped through). It seems unlikely to me that they don't know that most of the photos in some of the galleries come from Wikimedia Commons or Flickr. And there's absolutely no way they don't know where all those movie posters and tv series posters come from. – b_jonas 23:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. I'm not going to do anything about this. At 4,72$ for a poster, I'm pretty sure it will cost them more to host that specific web page than what they'll ever make from my picture... But, still, How shitty on their part... Letartean (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

License Review and archived versions

Hi, I have been asked on my talk page if I could review some files whose licenses have been changed. File:Ariana Grande Grammys Red Carpet 2020.png is an exemple, the only link where I'm able to see a compatible license is this text archive. My question is: is a passed {{LicenseReview}} appropriate for this kind of case? Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

  • The uploader sent me (which I forwarded to Christian Ferrer) this message. "Here's Google's cache of the page, if that helps." DanielleTH (Say hi!) 20:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The link seems different but the license is CC BY 3.0...and the video time is also 3:16 minutes and the same January 28, 2020 upload date. Hmm! --Leoboudv (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • So we appear to have evidence that the source file had a compatible licence for a single moment on the day of upload. In less than 1 and a half months the licence has been revoked (possibly on the day of upload). I'm fairly new here, so am not an expert, but that seems fairly flimsy evidence to sustain retention of a derivative work. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Creative Commons licenses are meant to be irrevocable, see Commons:License revocation. It doesn't matter whether the license has "changed", if it was uploaded at any point with a CC-BY license we can use it. Also for that matter, any file uploaded with a caveat that the license can be revoked is not a freely licensed file. If files are being uploaded under a "free" license but the author has a caveat that the license is revocable then the files should be deleted even if the license hasn't been revoked yet. Chess (User talk:Chess) Please ping when replying. 23:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but my point is that we have evidence that a version of the video file (not necessarily the source video file itself) was available at that url under the correct licence for a single second on the day of upload to YouTube. There is no evidence that the licence wasn't revoked a second later, before the creation of the derivative work, or that the original file wasn't replaced with a different version that was published at the same url but with a different licence. The presence of the correct licence on the url for a single second may be sufficient for Commons policy but it is a fairly flimsy argument to rely on in the real world. As a pure logic exercise, it is interesting to consider the potential arguments that could come up in a court case. However, I will bow to the judgement of more experienced editors. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In general, archive links can prove the license, sure. Google cache in particular is usually only good for a short time though, and if the uploader corrected their license shortly after uploading, not as sure we should use that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes I tend to agree with that, you put words on what was bothering me. I am not comfortable to use LR here. That is different than when a website change their licensing terms after to have used a free license during several years, and that several hundred of files are affected. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding audiovisual works uploaded to YouTube by Philippine government

{{PD-PhilippinesGov}} states that all works by the Philippine government are in the public domain, unless otherwise stated. Since most videos by the government are uploaded on YouTube, should we assume that all their YouTube videos are not in the public domain but under the Standard YouTube License? I was planning to upload all PTV videos here, but it seems my country's copyright law won't allow it. pandakekok9 04:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

"otherwise noted" means noted in a law, not by a low level employee uploading videos to YouTube. Ruslik (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Additionally, with videos, you have to consider whether the work in its entirety is the original creation of an author. It's not uncommon for people to upload "freely licensed videos" which themselves use visual and audio works under fair use. GMGtalk 13:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Admiral Charles Little.png

Hi. File:Admiral Charles Little.png is currently listed with unknown author, but it appears to be very similar to a photo at the National Portrait Gallery, London, by Walter Stoneman.[27] He is in almost the same pose, with only small differences in his expression. I suspect they were both taken in the same session. The version we have was published in 1937, while the version at National Portrait Gallery was created in 1935. Is this sufficient to identify the creator as Walter Stoneman or should I record it as "possibly Walter Stoneman"? If the identity is confirmed, we will need to delete it for the time being. Stoneman died in 1958, so his creations don't become PD until 1 January 2029. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: I would go with "possibly". Both possibilities seem plausible to me, there's not enough information to know for sure. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
The "Reasonable enquiry" required for {{PD-UK-unknown}} is often not demonstrated, but waved away with "I don't know right now so it must be unknowable". It's always a good idea to double check the source material for claims or clues to authorship, which appears to be available (with registration) at the British Newspaper Archive. If the photograph is indeed unattributed in the Illustrated London News, it is possible, even likely, that the image appeared in other newspapers or magazines published around the same time (or even considerably later), and some of these may credit the photographer. It is certainly plausible that formal/official portraits are widely reused for years after their creation. --Animalparty (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore, BMacZero, and Animalparty: I've checked and it is unattributed (link) - I don;t know the ILN well enough to know if that's always the rule, but none of the others on that page are either. My suspicion would also be that it's probably from the same Stoneman session as well, though. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Help to determine copyvio

These two images (File:Franklim Oliveira .jpg & File:A Patrulha. Órgão do Corpo de Escoteiros da CMP.jpg) were uploaded today as "own work". They are obviously not "own work" since the images were produced 100 years ago. However, in COM:PORTUGAL is told that: "All photographs taken until 30 June 1970 are in the public domain in Portugal...", so I believe that these images can be in public domain and therefore fit to be pubished here. Can someone help me to determine if they are in public domain? Regards.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The latter is not a photograph, but a 1921 newspaper. Could be {{PD-anon-expired}}. Abzeronow (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Miltary insignia

Miltary insignias. I'm trying to figure it out. If I build SVG version (my own SVG version). Can I upload it to Commons with my own license? And also, what additional advice you can give me. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 175.212.2.111 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't my area of expertise but it may be useful to say which country's military it is and whether it is a current insignia. If it is an old insignia, what time period did it belong to? From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

But what difference does it make "which army". Does it needed another license rather then my own. Let's say https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tail_markings_of_the_Japan_Air_Self-Defense_Force or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:SVG_military_rank_insignia_of_Sweden (renk insignia). — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.126.251.202 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The country that created the insignia may have a law that states it is protected by copyright and that it is illegal to reuse it without permission. Under Commons rules, any image has to be free of copyright in both the origin country and the USA. While you may recreate an insignia, this may be considered a derivative work. You own the copyright of your derivative creation but the isignia you copied may still have a copyright. In the cases of derivative works, all parties that hold a copyright need to licence it on suitable terms, not just the last person in the chain.
As I said though, military insignias are not my area of expertise, so someone may correct me and say that there is something like an international law that prohibits the claiming of copyright on military symbols.
I'll have to leave it to another editor to advise you on the Japanese and Swedish examples. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Greta Thunberg- World Economic Forum (Davos).webm

Today a number of images of Greta Thunberg at the WEF 2020 were deleted because the WEF publishes images with a cc-nc license. If this is the case, isn't this then not also true for File:Greta Thunberg- World Economic Forum (Davos).webm a video published by WEF on YouTube with a cc license from the 2019 WEF? --C.Suthorn (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I think YouTube’s standard licensing may be OK for Commons per COM:L, but not sure. If it is and YT is the first or the only place the WEF posted the video, then the file may be OK. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Irrevocable, keep it. A video can be released under different license on different locations, it doesn't even matter if it was cc-NC licensed elsewhere unless WEF is not the copyright holder. // Eatcha (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems that WEF publishes fotos at flickr and videos at youtube. flickr shows a cc-nc license (and obviously WEF uses cc-nc since 2014 and cc before that). I cannot see any license information at the youtube video. So maybe WEF themselves intends to post videos on youtube since 2014 as cc-nc. Does it count that youtube uses cc, or does it count that WEF intended and assumed they were posting cc-nc on youtube (if this is the case)? --C.Suthorn (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Only the WEF can say what it intended to do and Commons shouldn't try and guess. YT seems to allow uploader's the option to use its standard license or COM:CC license and if the CC license is one that Commons accepts (and that seems to be the case per COM:YT), then such content can be kept. You can find the license for this video by clicking on the "Show more", where you'll find a link to this page which in turn contains a link to this. I'm not sure whether copyright holders can add other restrictions to the a YouTube license, but I don't think they can be applied if they're not explicitly stated despite what the copyright holder's intentions might be. So, if the WEF unintentionally released their videos under the wrong license, then they probably need to be the one, not Commons, to rectify that. For what it's worth, this file does look to be licensed as {{Cc-by-3.0}} which seems to be one that Commons accepts. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Generally, if somebody doesn't want to release a video under the CC license that YouTube provides, they won't select that option. If they want to offer a license like CC-NC, they can pick the YouTube standard license and provide the additional license as text within the video itself and/or in the video description. --ghouston (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Flickr review bot

The bot FlickreviewR 2 doesn't seem to be doing its job as I have a photo waiting two days to be reviewed. (File:Princess, Emperor.jpg) There seem to be hundreds others waiting for review.Ron Clausen (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ron Clausen: Special:Contribs/FlickreviewR 2 appears to be working fine. The bot is just being inundated with requests and it has a limit on the number of edits per minute it can perform. Please be patient. --Majora (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy of

Hello, is "Courtesy of" an acceptable statement in a free licensed article? for the context see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oliver2012 fig9 Pourtalesia miranda Agassiz, 1869 with Syssitomya pourtalesiana Oliver, 2012.png. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

en:Light soaking

I believe all the files in this article have been uploaded to commons inappropriately, but I never can figure out what the hell to do with images. If someone could take a look at these, or nominate them for deletion/review, that would be great. Headbomb (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "inappropriately"? Ruslik (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Jo-Jo Eumerus has nominated them all for deletion:
--bjh21 (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Aye, there was some discussion at en:Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion#Light soaking about these images, hence the deletion requests. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Headbomb (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

What license is appropriate for lets say Box Art/DVD art of a product?

Hello, I'm a bit confused about copyright options. For example, to upload Box Art/DVD art or a logo of a product which license is appropriate for that? To grant Wikimedia rights to display the image in all relevant situations, but not grant let's say right to use to promote other products etc.? I hope it makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sothasil1 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sothasil1: Most likely the box art or DVD art are not released under a free license (see COM:L), therefore they are prohibited on Wikimedia Commons. If they are in a free license, we would use the corresponding template for that (for example, if they released the art under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, we would use {{Cc-by-4.0}}). For logos, sometimes they could be in the public domain because they are below the threshold of originality for both the country of origin and the United States. We would use {{PD-ineligible}} for that. Otherwise, they should be under a free license, else they would be deleted for copyright violation. And please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Thanks, pandakekok9 07:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
And regarding To grant Wikimedia rights to display the image in all relevant situations, if you mean fair use, then Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept fair use. You should upload it in another Wikimedia project which accepts fair use (like English Wikipedia). pandakekok9 07:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Pandakekok9: Thank you, still getting hang of it all. So to upload under fair use it needs to be on English Wikipedia by autoconfirmed user.Sothasil1 (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sothasil1: You can request at en:Wikipedia:Files for upload while you're not autoconfirmed. pandakekok9 11:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
{{Nofu}}:
Commons does not allow fair use content. To upload fair use content on English Wikipedia, please use English Wikipedia's local upload. For other projects, please check the lists of exemption doctrine policies on Wikimedia projects or ask your local help desk. Not all projects allow the uploading of fair use material, if your project has no exemption doctrine policy, you can't use such material. Do not upload it to Commons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello If an English wiki page displays the image of an artist, can't one use the same image for the same page translated to another language ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetomer (talk • contribs) 14:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The English Wikipedia uses U.S. law alone to determine copyright expiration, and also allows fair-use images in certain circumstances. Other Wikipedias may use other laws to determine copyright expiration, and some do not allow fair use at all (or allow it with different limits and situations, possibly per the law of the countries they are most targeted to). Thus, en-wiki and some others allow images to be uploaded locally to that project, and those are only directly usable on those projects. To be directly usable in another project, an image must be on Commons. Commons does not accept fair use images at all, and uses *both* U.S. law and the law of the Berne "country of origin" to determine copyright expiration. "Fair use" is a particular fact of U.S. law and is wider in scope than similar provisions in most other laws, so what is legal for the U.S. may not be in other countries.
So if an image of the artist is being used under a "fair use" situation, it can only be used in another languages project if 1) it conforms to that projects version of fair use, and 2) is also uploaded locally to that project. If an image is public domain in the U.S. but not the country of origin, then it's similar, provided it has expired per the law that the language's project uses to determine public domain status (presuming it's not the country of origin). If an image is public domain in both the U.S. and the country of origin (perhaps the copyright has expired in the country of origin since upload to en-wiki), it can be transferred to Commons and directly used in other projects (though in some rare cases, it's possible that an image on Commons may not yet be expired per the law a project uses; it is up to that project what to do on those cases.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

PD US Gov not free globally?

According to en:Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States:

...under section 105 of the Copyright Act, [federal government] works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law and are therefore in the public domain.

This act only applies to U.S. domestic copyright as that is the extent of U.S. federal law. The U.S. government asserts that it can still hold the copyright to those works in other countries.

If this is so, how come we describe such images as "identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Because a user wrongly added a PD-mark footer to a lot of templates (e.g. [28]), which, as has already been pointed out many times, is a big mistake and should never have been done. But it requires a sysop to revert it and nobody has bothered to revert it yet. This affects also in particular some of the PD-old templates. I suppose that some users do not fully realise how wrong, absurd and damaging it is to have a default PD-mark in templates. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
@Asclepias: That's troubling; can you link to the earlier discussion please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Many discussions over past years can be found with a search using some keywords. Here are just a few from a very quick search: 1, 2, 3, etc. Some discussions address only small parts of the problem, but more basically it's just wrong to have it as a default in any license template. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Any U.S. protection for their federal government works in other countries is highly theoretical. The claim, in the House notes of the 1978 Copyright Act but not the actual law text, was based on an opinion from the U.S. Copyright Office, and relied on particular wording in the Universal Copyright Convention. Other UCC countries disputed that, with a survey of several countries eventually having a wide range of opinions (some agreeing, some not, many in between). Since then the U.S. has joined the Berne Convention, which may have changed the situation again -- not sure they can require protection anywhere, though a country may still choose to give it. The U.S. has explicitly added some exceptions to PD-USGov for works where they definitely want some foreign protection (certain Commerce Department data, if memory serves, for a period of five years). In the end, I don't think the U.S. has pressed any copyright case in a foreign country, so it's impossible to know for sure. There doesn't seem to be much of a realistic issue elsewhere though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

William Henry Hunt

Could somebody please review the authorship statements, dates, descriptions, and licences on File:William Henry Hunt, A Hermit, Exhibited 1847.jpg and File:William Henry Hunt, Boy at a Vegetable Stall-Candlelight, c. 1827.jpg, and others by the same uploader, and adjust and advise the uploader as necessary? I've had previous and unpleasant interaction with them, that would make it unwise for me to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I changed them to use Licensed-PD-Art, and added the creator tag. If there are any countries which do give a copyright on digitalizations of paintings, he has licensed the photo itself, so may as well preserve that. Seems like the same changes could be made on many of his uploads. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

copyrightability

If I commission a performance, and then record that performance, am I the copyright holder of that recording, even if the performed work itself is the copyright of the performer (or someone else)? For example, could I stop Elvis Costello on the street, request to and then record an impromptu performance of "Watching the Detectives", and then upload that recording under a CC license? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey Fourthords. The short answer is no. There would normally be a copyright for the work, a copyright for the performance, and possibly also copyrights for recordings and broadcasts. In order for the material to be suitable for Commons, all of these would have to be public domain or freely licensed, otherwise it would still be derivative of a non-free work. GMGtalk 16:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! Okay, so what if—in my example—I swapped out "Watching the Detectives" with something from the public domain like "Cotton-Eyed Joe"? Assuming I'm commissioning (however informally) the performance, would I hold the copyright to the resulting video/audio? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey Fourthords. As it happens, the payment for the performance makes no difference. The thing that matters is that the performers enter into a contractual relationship with you transferring the intellectual property rights over the copyright of the performance. It just so happens that most people aren't willing to do that unless you pay them.
But yes, if the musical work was public domain work, and the performance itself was freely licensed, such as under CCBYSA, then it would be suitable for upload to Commons. GMGtalk 20:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Regardless of money changing hands, I thought that commissioning another's performance gave the commissioner the copyright to the performance (barring the copyrightability of the 'work' (e.g. song, lines, arcobatics) itself). For example, I asked Robert Picardo to perform for me in 2012; I recorded it, and uploaded it here under the assumption that I held the copyright to the recording. Did I make the wrong assumptions in creating and uploading that recording? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
There is no copyright on the performance before it is recorded. So if it is original and that the work itself (including the melody and the lyrics) is free, then the recording may be OK for Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
So my hypothetical iPhone recording of Costello singing "Cotton-Eyed Joe" at my request would be copacetic for Commons? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this image (and also found here) in public domain? Note this image is currently uploaded as fair use in Chinese Wikipedia as the author can not find a free image of the subject (who died in 1917).--GZWDer (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It depends on whom is the photographer and on the date of publication but taking into account its age, it is most likely in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
The engraver is not named, and I don't see a signature on it. There is another version of it here. There is no engraver named there either, but it says it's made from a photo by Ferdinand Urbahns (died 1944). Getty and Granger have a version of the photo, but not sure where to find a non-watermarked one. So the engraving aspect would appear to be {{PD-anon-70}} (or at worst {{PD-old-assumed}}) and the underlying work is {{PD-old-70}}. It's PD-US-expired, of course, as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I have uploaded the image to File:Carl Rosendahl.jpg.--GZWDer (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@GZWDer: There is a higher resolution version at this URL (same site, just different URL). Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

HouseLive videos

HouseLive records the House of Representatives, and HR 2726 (warning, huge video!) is about a four minute segment of a house proceeding. HouseLive's terms say Proceedings of the House of Representatives, including any recording of such proceedings, may not be used for any political purpose or in any commercial advertisement, and may not be broadcast with commercial sponsorship except as part of a bona fide news program or public affairs documentary program. I think because this restriction is placed by the House (from Committee on Ethics: Coverage of House Floor and Committee Proceedings. Broadcast coverage and recordings of House floor proceedings may not be used for any political purpose under House Rule 5, clause 2(c)(1). In addition, under House Rule 11, clause 4(b), radio and television tapes and film of any coverage of House committee proceedings may not be used, or made available for use, as partisan political campaign material to promote or oppose the candidacy of any person for public office., it falls under House Rules and would therefore be PD.

It also looks like videos have been uploaded to Category:United States House of Representatives and Category:Videos by the United States House of Representatives.

Nikkimaria pointed out (on enwiki) that my 'house rules' argument probably is not valid, since those are when the facility restricts the creation of the media, however in this case the House is the creator.

My general thought is that this is similar to when NASA HQ posts images to its Flickr account. We uploaded to File:'A Beautiful Planet' World Premiere (NHQ201604160014).jpg with the template {{flickr-unfree-but|1={{tl|PD-NASA}}}}{{PD-USGov-NASA}} and filed it as PD as a government work.

The HouseLive videos seem to be the same situation, and I was looking for agreement or disagreement on this. I also wondered, if it is PD, if previous uploads should have some sort of note on them about why they are PD, similar to the NASA image.

To summarize:

  • Are the HouseLive videos PD?
  • Should any notice be posted to them to clarify their 'House Rule' (not to be confused with our house rules)

Thanks for any time, or for pointing me towards previous discussions. Kees08 (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems like they should be {{PD-USGov-Congress}}. Congressional ethics rules just apply to their membership (and candidates) -- it would need to be a law to apply to the public at large. (The Constitution allows the House and Senate to punish and/or expel one of their members.) Obviously, individuals retain their personality/publicity rights as well, so you can't make it seem as though they are sponsoring anything in your usages. That is not a copyright restriction, though. C-SPAN recording of committee hearings are not OK, since that is a private company, but video put out by congressional employees should be fine, copyright-wise. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, the video has been uploaded and tagged as such. Not the proper venue anymore, but mildly related, should Category:Videos from the House Floor and Category:Videos by the United States House of Representatives be merged? It is unclear to me what the difference is. Kees08 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Conflicting license (?)

This website page here notated at the bottom of the page that the content is released on creative commons license cc-by 4.0, but at the top of the page, it says "do not edit or remove logo". So is it allowed to be posted on common? Lulusword (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Lulusword: Per previous precedent, tistory webpages that have conflicting license statements are considered to be ineligible for hosting here. It is believed that they did not understand what they were doing when they marked the images under a permitable CC license so we go for the more restrictive one (in this case non-derivative). Many DRs have been filed regarding this discrepancy, all of which have resulted in the deletion of the images. For more information see User:-revi/Tistory. --Majora (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Lulusword (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Hofer Geschichtswege 83 20200221.jpg

Is File:Hofer Geschichtswege 83 20200221.jpg a copyvio?

Another user noticed noticed that this could be the case. I'm not sure about the topic, because the information board(s) (and the images and text that on the board) persist in a public place. So for me, it seems like freedom of panorama in Germany. What do you think? If it is a copyvio, I will delete it of course.

Thank you in advance, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though I am not German. But it seems to satisfy the "public" and "permanent" conditions. pandakekok9 04:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the information :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Rhodesia's Declaration of Independence

Does a photograph of en:Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence satisfy the conditions of {{PD-Zimbabwe}}? 50 years have passed since 11 November 1965. Gikü (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gikü: As the template says, in addition to time, you also need to consider who created the photograph and where it was published. Do you have that information? From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Not really, no. Thanks. Gikü (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

PD mark - can we fix?

There are a lot of files from this account https://www.flickr.com/photos/guatemalagob/ and many (if not all) are licensed with "Public Domain Mark 1.0". Can we fix that? (@Stalin990: as info). --MGA73 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: What license should they be under? Right now they are eligible for deletion if a different, valid, license is not provided. The PDM is not a valid license here. --Majora (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Majora: yes that is my question ;-) It looks like an official account. --MGA73 (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@MGA73: I doubt it. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Guatemala#General rules. The State and its public entities, municipalities, universities and other educational establishments in the country, shall enjoy the protection established by law. So even if it is an official account of the State it wouldn't matter. This is a prime example of Flickr not explaining what the PDM actually means. I'm guessing they meant to put these under CC0 but, unfortunately, we can't be sure. --Majora (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Majora: Darn! Then only chance is that someone who speak the language send a mail to them and ask for a permission to be send for OTRS for all the photos marked PD Mark to be released as CC0. --MGA73 (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I asked for help on Spanish Village pump. Lets see if someone wanna help out. --MGA73 (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

How to proceed

Hi, I have the consent of the onwers of multiple pictures but like myself they are korean, so my question is, Is it a necessity that the language of the consent is english? Oh! also if the imagen comes from the personality SNS like twitter or instagram. What is the way to credit it? Thank you again Thank you so much for helping. Nayramoo (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The language should not necessary be English but it should unambiguously identify both the image and the free license under which it is released. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Would the photo at the GNIS websiteː https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=138:3:0::NO:3:P3_FID,P3_TITLE:1411622,Mount%20Valhalla found inside of "Supporting Documents" be usable on Commons as made by US Government? Ron Clausen (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Was it really made by an employee of the US government? Ruslik (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
That's what I'm asking. Since there is no credit or attribution, can we assume it is made by government? All indications are that it is.Ron Clausen (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
No we cannot. There is insufficient evidence of authorship of the photograph, or even the date of creation (possibly in 1957 by L. E. Nielsen, but just as likely to be after, or before). Just as the Library of Congress website hosts thousands of images and books that are still in copyright (and that were not created by a Government employee), an image merely hosted on a government website with no creator indicated cannot be presumed to be the work of a federal employee. Research may indicate the author, or at least place of first publication. For what it's worth, L. E. Nielsen appears to have been a chemist at Monsanto who was also a mountaineer(source), but as I said, there is currently insufficient evidence regarding the creator of the photograph. --Animalparty (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User talk:NOVA OPERA

Доброго дня! Намагаємося загрузити низку фотографій щоб створити якісну групу статей про українську сучасну оперу NOVA OPERA

User talk:NOVA OPERA

Всі фотографії мають підписаного автора, більшість з них ніде не опублікована та знаходиться в моєму приватному архіві.

Скажіть будть ласка чи є шлях, яким їх можна розмістити у Вікі сховищі, який потрібно вибрати тип ліцензії, тощо, для того щоб їх не видаляли? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOVA OPERA (talk • contribs) 10:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@NOVA OPERA: Hi Private archives ("приватному архіві") doesn't mean nothing to us: owning a copy of an image and owning the rights on it has nothing to do. As requested here each photographer must send a permission via COM:OTRS since images do have been published prior of being uploaded here (you mention a link on your last batch of uploads). --Patrick Rogel (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

PdF material from art center deSingel

@NellBoey: is uploading a lot of PdF posters or leaflets from this art center. First I wonder if these PdFs can be hosted on Commons. Second the uploader links to the PdF itself and not the page containing the PdF preventing from verifying if the file is under CC-BY-SA 4.0. The claim itself that the art center holds the right on all these artworks or photographies is very doubtfull since some are by well known international photographers. For example File:Affiche Zuidelijk Toneel - Splendid's (promotiemateriaal).pdf is an original photo by Erwin Olaf, a photographer whose photos of the Dutch Royal family are not free so I doubt he renounces to his rights for this center. May Administrators take a look to these uploads? Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I have been collaborating with the arts centre deSingel and NellBoey in making their archival material on which they are the rightsholder available on Commons. The source files are in this case PDFs, not TIFFs or JPEGs. In this case, I don't see it as a problem, because Commons renders them as JPEGs anyway. Unfortunately, in the exceptional cases where an already existing photograph is part of the poster, this photographer is indicated in the available metadata. The arts centre declares that (being the copyright holder) they release the material under CC BY-SA 4.0. It is clearly indicated in the metadata (in the field "permission", not in "source") with reference to the statement on their website, so unlike you suggest it can clearly be verified. I agree that in the two cases that you identified the explicit permission of the photographer is doubtful. I see two options: either the community decides that the statement on deSingel.be is sufficient to keep these two files on Commons, or the community decides to delete these two files because we are not certain enough that the correct license is applied. I think there is something to say for both options, but as I am involved to a certain extent, I prefer to stand aside in that discussion to keep it as neutral as possible. Beireke1 (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@Beireke1: I've not verified all the files but the problem seems far from limited to these 2 files because I'm quite sure art center has not acquired the rights of so many photographies or artworks (because it never happens). Instead of the solution you're advocating you or @NellBoey: should contact deSingel and asked them to send a permission via COM:OTRS with the transfert of ownership included for the 2 listed files; that's the way we work here. If the permissions are not OK a mass deletion of the doubtfull artworks will probably follow. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

No FOP deletions

I noticed that there are a lot of images that would fall under no-FOP and should be deleted. Should they being marked for possible copyvio and speedy deletion, or go through regulare deletion requests? -Geraki TLG 18:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Unsplash photos license

I read the license for Unsplash free stock photos and it seemed "free enough" for the commons: https://unsplash.com/license I uploaded one image to use in a Wikibook. However, the image was taken down. Was there a problem with the license or a problem with my submission providing improper proof of this (I did not include the link to the image itself on Unsplash, only the license). There is a clause about how the "license does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service" - but I was unsure if this would apply to only one photo. I am a new user and trying to follow Wikimedia policy, many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmiglio2 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mmiglio2: The Unsplash license template explains, Template:Unsplash. The website changed their terms in 2017 to be less free. Photos uploaded prior to that are fine. After that are not. --Majora (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

PD-art vs FOP

Since there is FOP in Belgium, these images in Category:Stations of the Cross, Saint-Jean-Baptiste au Béguinage, Brussels are ok. However, given COM:PD-Art we don't acknowledge that a photographer is granted copyright for photographs of 2D-artworks. So, the photographs CC-license should be seen as non-existent, but the underlying artworks are not (proven yet to be) public domain, but merely ok due to FOP where a photograph is taken in public. Am I making any sense here, or can someone help me figure out the actual copyright status of these files and underlying artworks? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We do have {{Licensed-PD-Art}}, where we do acknowledge the license on the photos, but mention that following the license may not be required in all jurisdictions. (The explicit licensing of the photo can still help in some countries, so it's good to preserve). I think it would be reasonable to change to that, presuming the paintings themselves are out of copyright (i.e. FoP is not really necessary).
In general for FoP provisions, there are usually clauses (right from the Berne Convention) that the second work cannot be prejudicial to the underlying work -- so if the painting was still under copyright, any photo which amounts to a copy (i.e. anything where PD-Art applies) really can't use the FoP permission since (as a copy) it can be used as a direct substitute for the original, and would prejudice the original author's rights. To me, FoP photos should show the work in its public context, or at least be of a different form (2D photo of a 3D work). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
({{Licensed-FOP}} might even be better). Yeah, that's my opinion as well, that a copyrighted 2d-work can't be fully cropped from a FOP-image and claim to be FOP or DM if that is the entire new image. But am I right in thinking that you agree that these images should be deleted if not proven to be public domain, Clindberg? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
If those paintings were still under copyright, no I don't think we could keep them. FoP should not be applicable to them. However, they are paintings in a very old church, and the uploader is very, very well-versed in copyright, so I doubt they are an issue. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I think maybe these paintings are not part of the church, but are moved around, because on fr:Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste-au-Béguinage, in the gallery, says "Chemin de croix, 5, Simon de Cyrène aide Jésus à porter sa croix. Ce chemin de croix se trouve actuellement (2017) en l'église Sainte Catherine (voisine).", or "This Stations of the Cross is currently (2017) in the nearby Saint Catherine Church." --ghouston (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Per Stations of the Cross, it seems like they are a somewhat standard series of images, present in many churches -- but yes, they would seem to be moveable. They are presumably still old, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
There is one visible on the right edge of File:Bruxelles kosciol sw Katarzyny 07.jpg. Other versions on the web here, but can't find a named author. But sure seems old enough to not want to spend too much time searching. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Although I've searched all of the links this site offers, I'm not clear on how two co-executors grant two CC BY-SA 4.0 licenses for using using two photos from their deceased father's photographic work. They are not themselves the creator, although they now jointly hold copyright authority. The photos would be used in the wiki I wrote on Oliver LaGrone, approved for publication in September 2016.

The co-executors are ready to grant the open use license. Is it best for them to upload the images? At what address? Using what form? If I am to upload the photos, do I put the images directly into the wiki I wrote on Oliver LaGrone and include {OTRS pending}? Or do I upload them to Wikimedia Commons?

How do the co-executors jointly confer the license? They live in two different states. Using what form? How can I learn what information the upload form they would use asks for, in order to ease the process by offering them draft language? How do I learn when the process is complete and the image is available for use in the Oliver LaGrone wiki?

My previous attempts to accomplish connecting their joint/two permission(s) with two images inserted in the wiki have failed. Each question I've posed above arises out of my failed experiences. Your advice and overt direction on process will be MUCH appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordell Affeldt (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

You can find necessary information on Commons:OTRS. Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

COM:COSPLAY has some history that I am not all that well acquainted with. There is a new DR (regarding a photo I took, currently on the main page of enwp) that seems like a challenge to [at least the summary at the bottom of] that guideline. Would appreciate opinions of people with more knowledge of this than me. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Works by Robert Sowers

Recently many works of en:Robert Sowers (1923-1990) have been uploaded by User:Glassybones, and to me it seems these work are copyrighted. It would be a hell of a task to me to nominate them all for deletion, because I don't know how to organize a mass deletion. Could somebody please take a look at the uploads and mass tag them for deletion? Thanks, Eissink (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

Was there a copyright notice on the big mural at JFK airport? May have become PD in 1960 if not... and would have needed a renewal if there was (which I don't see). Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not familiar enough with US copyright to answer. Eissink (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC).
Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. Most likely, the AA project became PD immediately and we just need a license for the photos (presuming they are just being published now -- if they were published a long time ago they could also be public domain). Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

These photographs, and works are from the estate of Robert Sowers, are in my possession, and I have been authorized to use them by Judi Jordan Sowers.. FYI there was never a copyright on the AA project. [ 23 mrt 2020 02:37‎ Glassybones ]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Glassybones (talk • contribs) 02:37, 23 March 2020‎ (UTC)


I feel a bit lost when it comes to technical, judicial details, not in the least because English is not my native language, so I hope someone can jump in here and show Glassybones the way to OTRS. The works seem to me to be of great value, so these images should be very welcome. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC).
The copyrights of photographs of Sowers, File:RS JJ Portrait.jpg and File:Robert Sowers by DORIS BARNES.2.jpg might however not be owned by the estate, and the same goes probably for the photographs of the AA Terminal art work. Eissink (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC).
The two portraits are more problematic, but if they were distributed to Sowers without a copyright notice on them before March 1, 1989, they may also be public domain for that reason ({{PD-US-no notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}). There could have also been a contract about ownership of the copyright of them, which the estate would know more than us. I don't see any real issue with the AA terminal photos.
If the photos were previously published elsewhere, we do typically prefer that uploaders follow the COM:OTRS process by getting the copyright owners to send a private email, confirming the license. Accounts here are essentially anonymous so we really can't tell if it's a genuine license, or someone just copying an image they wanted to use. But if they have not been published before, we typically assume good faith and do not require OTRS (though it never hurts). For a noted artist, it may be a good idea for OTRS confirmation on the actual artworks though -- presumably those were published somewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I have tagged the 31 files for missing evidence of permission. A declaration of consent to confirm copyright ownership will have to be send via OTRS. Eissink (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC).
User:Glassybones, the easiest way to get this resolved might be to contact OTRS-members via Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. Best wishes, Eissink (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC).

Bystander selfie

I'll appreciate community review regarding to bystander selfies in this discussion. -- Geagea (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Scooby Doo & Shaggy

Scooby Doo is a copyrighted dog!

Can we keep this on commons ? The dog is copyrighted. But wait, is that really a dog or a cosplayer. //Eatcha (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eatcha: It's fine. It's a guy in a green T-shirt and a dog costume that you don't even see well. --Ruthven (msg) 09:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Eatcha (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Image source is a book published in 1933 (File:AizuCastle.jpg)

Please look into the following, and if appropriate, kindly update image description page with due template.

The image File:AizuCastle.jpg lacks copyright/source information, while an identical looking image of a battered dungeon is published on Japan's National Diet Library site (1 The Aizu War and Wakamatsu Castle. National Diet Library of Japan. Retrieved on 24 March 2020.).

  • The image caption on the web reads: "The main tower of Wakamatsu Castle Aizu Boshin Senshi. It is scanned from a book.
  • The image source is from the collection of the same library: ""Aizu Wakamatsu-jo tenshukaku" (Dungeon, Aizu Wakamatsu Castle): Aizu Boshin Senshi: Kuchi-e oyobi chizu" in (in Japanese) (1933) 会津戊辰戦史, Tokyo Retrieved on 24 March 2020. ;　JPNO id=53010833. Image appears before the table of contents, and to the left of the list of pitures, no page number is shown but Jpeg id (0006.jp2-left) for the spread containing the image is available.

--Omotecho (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You can do this yourself. Ruslik (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Added information template and source info provided. Abzeronow (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Flaticon.com

The 555 icons from this website are not quite free enough to be here. Special:Search/insource:flaticon

  • They seem to restrict usage to only "secondary" usage[29][30]
  • Icons them selves cannot be sold as an app [31]
  • Cannot be used as filters or stickers[32]
  • Cannot be resold onto print on demand products[33]
  • Cannot be used as part of any commercial logo[34]

We can keep simple ones by replacing the license with Template:PD-shape.--BevinKacon (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

One possible way to proceed would be to create a list of the icons that are below the applicable threshold(s) of originality. (If the icons are of US origin, then my understanding is that only the US TOO would apply.) It might be useful if multiple Commons contributors could contribute to and edit the list. Subsequently, a DR could be opened for the icons that are not on the "keep" list.
Another possiblity might be to open a DR which lists all of the icons and to then allow others to indicate icons that should be kept in the DR.
From what I understand, in addition to the images depicted by the icons, there may be copyright issues with the vectorization itself for the icons.
Below, I have listed some of the icons that *might* be below the US TOO. However, I urge others to please look at the list; determining if an image is below the US TOO does not feel easy for me and I am by no means sure that all of the icons on the list (as of this writing) are below the US TOO. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Icons that might be ineligible for copyright
I've replaced the most basic above with pd-shape.--BevinKacon (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
@BevinKacon: Thanks for your contribution. @Clindberg: The issue with the icons may or may not be of interest, but I thought I would notify you just in case. Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 06:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This specific icon pack was originally released under CC-BY 3.0 in 2014. This archive from 2017 shows it clearly. They were not subject to the general site licence, but a specific licence which is compatible: (archive). Such a licence is not-retractable.
@Gazebo and BevinKacon: . CFCF (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Pardon my copyright ignorance, but I could use a more knowledgeable editor at File:Ptsd_Help.png. It looks like the picture was grabbed from this website which claims copyright in 2015, but the photo itself is clearly from File:Battling PTSD (4949341330).jpg and is in the public domain. Does cropping the image and adding the text make the derivative copyrightable? If yes, do we delete File:Ptsd_Help.png? If no, then could someone clarify the license tag? Thanks a million! Ajpolino (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It should be kept and marked with {{Pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

If there is a recently uploaded image that might be a copyright violation, what should I do? David Tornheim (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Mark it with {{Copyvio}} and notify the uploader. There's an automated process of this, which just requires clicking on the "Report copyright violation" button on the Tools section on the left side of your screen (if you're in a desktop). pandakekok9 09:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Make sure to enable AjaxQuickDelete (if you disabled it) and QuickDelete in the Gadgets tab of your preferences. pandakekok9 09:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

w:Family Service Agency of San Francisco changed its name to Felton Institute, and it has a new logo. The old logo is in commons as File:FSASFLOGOFINAL1.png. I uploaded the new logo and copied the copyright from the old to the new. The new logo page has a copyright error message. What did I do wrong? Comfr (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

My mistake. I will move to Wikipedia. Commons has no fair use. Comfr (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I have since re-uploaded using logo license, instead of free use. Comfr (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Queer literature readings

There's been some discussion amongst our LGBT+ user group about sharing performances and readings while many people are spending time isolated or working from home. My presumption is that if an original work of literature is in copyright that any reading of it would be a derived work and the audio file could not be hosted here, even if we have performance rights. Apart from public domain and expired copyright literature, are there any types of literature that it would be okay to upload readings of on Commons, or are we limited to those? --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You can also upload readings of literature released by their authors under an acceptable free licence. Ruslik (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Plot summaries from English Wikipedia. Consider en:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone#Synopsis, which might take 5-10 minutes to read out loud. If anyone wanted to produce audio summaries of books or movies then they might. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

en:File:Bob Burns with bazooka 1937.jpg OK for Commons?

Does this image qualify for being moved to Commons? --SI 01:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

If the research described on the page is accurate, then yes. Images that are public domain in the United States and the source country are fine for Commons. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer! I just see the uploader seems to be very experienced here and there, but looks retired. I have asked them nontheless.
Which tool is currently the best for transferring? --SI 03:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
There are two tools at Commons:Upload tools#Transfer from other Wikimedia projects. Personally I prefer CommonsHelper. pandakekok9 04:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

How to give attribution in a particular situation?

Hi,

I'd like to use the following image of Rubin's vase on the title cover of my thesis: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vase_of_rubin.png I've read the info about credit line and how to give attribution. However, as you can see when clicking on the link the author is called "FeZn". It's not possible to detect who's behind it. How should I give attribution to the author in this particular situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pemblad (talk • contribs) 07:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pemblad: Using the username itself should be enough in this case, along with a link to the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. pandakekok9 10:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
See also Commons:Credit line. pandakekok9 10:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Google screenshot

screenshot of Google Search Engine Results Page

Can someone very specifically describe the amount of a Google Search Engine Results Page that can be in an image and be public domain content?

I blurred this result significantly. I wanted to showcase this because it shows data from Wikidata and content from English Wikipedia.

I expect that the concept of a Search Engine Results Page is not copyrightable. There is a familiar layout, like having a search bar, some tabs at the top, some featured content with images, the concept of an infobox, and a list of results with text summaries. Can anyone speak out and say what in this image might be eligible for copyright protection? If possible, can anyone say what I could blur or remove to make this a good example of how to document screenshots?

version 2, a variation with almost everything except content from Wikipedia blurred

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

License tag for Wiki82esh

This user's help request has been resolved
If you have more questions, feel free to make another {{helpme}} request.

Forgive my copyright ignorance! my name - Wiki82esh I have two groups of photos: 1. book covers 2. family photos All books and photographs are in USMMH. Help me clarify the license tag. Wiki82esh (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

If you took the family photos yourself then you can upload them. In case they were taken by other family members we will need their permissions. As to book covers, you can upload them if a book is in public domain or if a cover is so simple as to be {{Pd-text}}. Ruslik (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Spot magazine (USA, 1940s)

Spot ("The Entertaining Picture Magazine") was a New York magazine published in the 1940s, edited by Frank Hall Fraysur, who also worked for Life magazine. (By today's standards it would probably be classed as a "lad mag".) I'd be interested to know whether the magazine is now public domain in the USA by virtue of not having its copyrights renewed. Specifically, the only known photo of U.S. entertainer w:Emil Van Horn, which was published in the April 1941 issue. Muzilon (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

A good place to start is UPenn's list of first renewals for periodical works. If a U.S. publication and not listed (and I don't see it), or the issue in question is older than the first renewal, they should be fine if before 1965. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Next question is, does anyone have access to a good quality scan? A library archive or something? Muzilon (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

"Papa" John Schnatter photo from Flickr by NC National Guard

There's a picture of John Schnatter on Flickr published by the North Carolina National Guard (https://flickr.com/photos/ncngpao/8929996982/). It's licensed under CC-BY-ND 2.0, but since it was published by a branch of the military, couldn't it be uploaded here under Public Domain? StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Each state's National Guard is a state institution, and is not part of the federal government, and does not fall under PD-USGov. Only the National Guard Bureau, which coordinates amongst the states, is a federal entity. That said, many U.S. Army and Air Force personnel are assigned to the National Guard, and if they are federal employees, their works should be PD-USGov (but works by state employees would not be). Their Flickr stream probably has both types. Your photo does say "U.S. Army National Guard Photo by Army Capt. Rick Scoggins, North Carolina National Guard Public Affairs Office/Released", which does imply that he is employed by the U.S. Army and should make that PD-USGov. We have at least one photo of his here, though that was released through dvidshub.net (the overall Department of Defense imagery website), and I don't see this one there. But given the credit, probably should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me @Clindberg: . I'll try uploading it. StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Photgraphies of sculptures during the 2011 Toronto Fan Expo

Hello All,

I have a question regarding the Deletion requests [35] regarding:

I would like to know if there is not qn exeption because it is in an exhibition, like in this convention (2011 Toronto Fan Expo). Could you please advise?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

Best regards, --CoffeeEngineer (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

For most non-commercial usage in real life, it's not likely a problem. So uploading here is likely not an actual "copyright violation", but rather just runs into site policy -- we need photos to be "free", and if the photo counts as a derivative work, then we would need a license from both the photographer and the copyright owner of the underlying work to make it that way. Being "free" means a wide range of uses, including commercial, need to be allowed, so if a potential use in those boundaries could be a copyright violation, we shouldn't host it. Derivative works can be a complicated subject, but a photo focusing directly on a copyrighted work is most likely a potential problem if used in a commercial context, unless it can rely on an exception in copyright law. Some countries (including Canada) do have exceptions that we call "freedom of panorama", see Commons:Freedom of panorama and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada#Freedom_of_panorama. The wording in Canada's law allows photos depicting a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building. The problem there is the "permanently situated" requirement -- temporary exhibitions have a planned end date, and so are not permanently situated, and are not in the scope of the exception. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Helllo @Clindberg: , thank you for your answer and sorry for my late response. It is very clear. I hope they will stay, but I would understand they are deleted. Best regards,--CoffeeEngineer (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Import WW2 pictures taken by US Army but listed as copyrighted on Flickr

When trying to populate the following category [Category:V-2-site_Sottevast], I searched from WW2 material and came up with the following "copyrighted" pictures on flickr (https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=sottevast+v2) I was wondering if it was ok to upload all these WW2 pictures taken presumably by the US Army to Commons (all but the first one, obviously, that seems to be a recent one). Thanks and stay safe Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If they were taken by personal of US Army, you can upload them, of course. Please, use {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}} template. Ruslik (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Afernand74. This could just be a case of unintentional COM:LL. If you can find the same photos somewhere else where their en:provenance is better indicated, then perhaps it would be better to use that as the source than the Flickr account. If this is just an accidental case of LL, the Flickr user almost certainly got the photos from somewhere else, unless they are perhaps photos taken by someone like a relative that were never published prior to Flickr. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
All the ones I looked at has the U.S. Army Signal Corps mark at the bottom right. Those are fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks!! Much appreciated! Afernand74 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Public domain in Canada AND US?

I'm having trouble parsing the guidelines for when Canadian works are PD in the US (and thus able to be used on Commons), and am hoping someone can clarify.

I have a book published in 1925 in Canada by a Canadian author who died in 1969, and therefore it is PD in Canada as of 2020. It was never published separately in the US as far as I can tell, but would no doubt have been ordered by various US institutions and individuals fairly immediately upon publication in Canada. Not sure if this would count as "published in the US". There are no results in the "Copyright Renewal Database, Stanford University" so if this DOES count as published in the US, I think the contents are PD in the US.

If not technically "published in the US", I see the sentence "Works which were first published outside the US (and not subsequently republished in the US within 30 days) on or after January 1, 1925 may be copyrighted in the US by virtue of the URAA". The book was not PD at the time of URAA, in which case I believe it would not currently be PD in the US, but not sure about that.

Any assistance much appreciated! Somatochlora (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

That to me doesn't sound like it was published in the US any more than it was imported. If that does count, then {{PD-URAA-Simul}} applies; otherwise, wait until 2021 to upload it as either {{PD-US-expired}} with {{PD-Canada-creator}} or {{PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1969}}. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@Somatochlora: Unless it was simultaneously published in the U.S., it won't be public domain in the U.S. until next year. You can either wait until January 1st, or you can go ahead and upload it and we'll delete it but put it into Category:Undelete in 2021. Kaldari (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both, despite the disappointing answer! Somatochlora (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Nirmal Techfest'13.jpg

This logo is almost certainly {{PD-logo}} in the US per c:COM:TOO United States, but I'm wondering if it's also PD in its (apparent) country of origin India per COM:TOO India. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition, File:RDTC SCSCOE college logo.jpg, which was also uploaded by the same person as "own work", might even be too complex to be PD in the US, and I can't really find it anywhere on the https://rajgad.edu.in/index.php college's website] to verify whether it might have been released under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:RDTC SCSCOE college logo.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Threshold

I uploaded File:Dalca segun Lothrop, S. K. (1932).png and apply a matter of discretion. Can anyway confirm my choice?. I hope not to do the svg of that nice png. --Juan Villalobos (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say that it passes the threshold of originality. And since it was published in 1932 by an author that died in 1965, it seems unlikely to be public domain. Kaldari (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I have to draw it in svg. --Juan Villalobos (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems it was by an American author in a 1932 British publication. If the British journal was the first publication, then it's probably protected in the UK until 2036. However, as an American author, it would not be eligible for the URAA, so it would be PD in the U.S. (the British journal was never renewed). So at the very least, it could be uploaded to en-wiki if desired, but that won't help in other languages. If the drawing was in an earlier U.S. publication, it's possible it is PD that way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/03&oldid=411245071"