Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/07

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

1972 publications and others

A new contributor needs some help with what "own work" means in relation to a 1972 publication (by "B & B Enterprises, Inc.") and some others. Uncle G (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done — Racconish 💬 18:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Roy17 (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

user Anythingggg

all contributions by user:Anythingggg look suspious. Two of them (Wnbr.jpg and Wnbr 2.jpg) seem to have been taken from social media and therefore Copyright violations? --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Deleted by Emha (talk · contribs). @C.Suthorn: the best place to report things like this is probably Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: – BMacZero (🗩) 18:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

File:SouthernDerby.jpg

Are photo of trophies/cups considered "3D works of art" like sculptures of jewelry and therefore considered to be eligible for copyright protection. The date on the plaque is 2000, but the trophy's design seems pretty utilitarian. Would this be considered a COM:DW? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Trophies/cups are not utiliarian and are protected by copyright as they were intended to be scuptural works and not utensils. Thus, this is a COM:Derivative work T CellsTalk 14:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi all,

I recently uploaded a new version of an ancient map (you can see it here [1]) but now I have some doubts.

The map itself is in Public Domain (it's dated 1763). I don't have access to the original copy of the map, but I have a reprint made in 1980. Therefore I scanned it and uploaded to commons.

Now, I went through the Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag article, but my case seems to me slightly different.

My question is: is my scan compliant with commons (since the reprint is a mere reproduction and it doesn't count as copyright) or not?

Thank you and best regards

--Sette-quattro (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Only creative work can be copyrighted. Reprint itself does not add any copyright to it. I think your upload is great and I would vote to keep in case of any deletion request. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Hey Sette-quattro. So long as the work was first published in 1763, then making a faithful reproduction it in a recent work would not affect the copyright. The more recent book would itself be using the map as a public domain work. This may not be the case if the reprint made substantial creative contributions to the map prior to publishing, which may introduce a new copyright for the changes they themselves made. But this would normally need to be changes other than merely arranging and reprinting of the original. GMGtalk 10:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to both! Another question: how should I acknowledge the book containing the scanned map? as "source" I would put metadata about the original map, but somewhere else I should put the data of the book I scanned ([2]). I imagine there are guidelines but i'm not able to find them. Could you put me in the right direction? --Sette-quattro (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey Sette-quattro. I'm not sure there is any one right answer to that question. I would just try to be as clear as possible and provide as much information as you could. Off the top of my head, I would probably just go in the source field of the file description and say something like Image taken from [book] published in [year] available at [url]. Map originally published in [year]. For more information see [how you know it was published originally that year]. and if possible, in the author section Map originally published by [name], born [year], died [year]. That ought to be plenty enough information for others to verify that the map is in the public domain. GMGtalk 14:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

TOO Ireland

Is anyone familiar with Irish law? Commons currently has no COM:TOO Ireland guidelines. I found an essay from the Intellectual Property Law Committee, Law Society of Ireland. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:ISPCC_official_logo.png is a related case.--Roy17 (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Could musics on Music Atelier Amacha be used in CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licensed videos?

Hi. Recently I found a website called 甘茶の音楽工房 (Music Atelier Amacha). Per this website's ToU, music on this website could be used for free with contribution, but you could not only distribute the music file (音楽だけを販売したり、素材として二次配布することは禁止です。).

My question is, could musics on Music Atelier Amacha be used in CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licensed videos? --WQL (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it alright to use this license when I have a photo of something taken from the Macau Judiciary Police's official website? Ominae (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If it is an official work then yes, but the website can host non-official works. Ruslik (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Roy17 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Oggy-and-the-Cockroaches-Oggys-House-Compilation-1H-in-HD-YouTube.webm

This video is still copyrighted under French laws. It is not PD until 2068. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Right, deleted. Yann (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Did the uploader got disqualified? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Ähem, you don't get "disqualified" for one wrong upload, especially when it's not a blatant copyvio. --Túrelio (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
A French cartoon from 1998 is a pretty blatant copyvio. I can't see who uploaded it, but that's a pretty bad sign.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Roy17 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

File:ABG logo 2018.png

I have a question ~ not trying to remove or delete ~ but even though you work for a company, doesn't wiki need more than just this ~ Author ~ Matthew Mason, VP of Financial Planning & Analysis and duly appointed representative of Authentic Brands Group ~ to use a commercial image here ~ Thanks Mitchellhobbs (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mitchellhobbs. I think it's best practice to try and provide as much accurate information about the source of an image as much as possible, but I think File:ABG logo 2018.png is simple enough per COM:TOO United States that it wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection regardless of who created it. Perhaps adding {{Trademark}} template and a link to the company's official website is more than sufficient for Commons purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Roy17 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

El Heraldo newspaper from 1976 front page jpeg

I have three newspaper articles I intend to uploadinto Commons all dated in the month of May 1976 originating in Colombia there are no copyright notices on the front pages of any of these newspaper publication.In addition I recieved them from the director Beatrice Aguillar courtesy of the Atlantic Department of Historical Documents for the sole purpose of uploading them to wikimedia commons . The copyright act of 1976 took place on June 18 1976. The newspaper dates are May7,1976,May8,1976 and May10 ,1976 why are they being deleted and I ask for advice on what is needed for them to remain on commonsDeanna Coakley (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

If there was a copyright notice on any page, it would qualify (often for a newspaper, it is not on the front page, but one of the interior pages where they list the editors, address, etc.). However, if these are from Colombia, that becomes basically irrelevant. Commons rules are that works must be free in both the country of origin (which is the country of first publication) and also the U.S., and in Colombia (the country of origin in this case) works are protected for the author's lifetime plus 80 more years. If the author's name is not listed on an article, it was published anonymously, and would last 80 years from publication. The overall newspaper compilation copyright would also be 80 years from publication -- see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Colombia. So they will not be public domain in Colombia until at least 2057. Furthermore, as a foreign work, the U.S. copyright was restored in 1996 by the URAA (see Commons:URAA-restored copyrights), since the U.S. had recently joined the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention forbids losing copyright due to lack of formalities like copyright notice or renewal, so the U.S. was no longer allowed to treat foreign works (of Berne Convention members at least) as public domain for those reasons but was required to restore copyright to its full term, even if they were previously public domain. (As a note, the U.S. 1976 Copyright Act did not have legal effect before January 1, 1978, but copyright notices were still required up until March 1, 1989, though with slightly different rules.) So your newspapers will not be public domain in the U.S. until 2072. See Commons:Hirtle chart. If the Atlantic Department of Historical Documents actually owns the copyright, they can license it with a free copyright license if they wish, but that would require going through the COM:OTRS process which would involve a permissions email. The upshot is yes, copyright lasts a frustratingly long time. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Multiple copyvio images

I have chanced upon a number of historic images that I strongly suspect to be Good Faith copyvios. The editor is of low edit-count, almost-entirely SPA (dirt racing) and needs to be informed of WP CoI policy (uploads to WP not Commons also indicates lack of experience). I have checked the background of the editor online and seems to be strongly self-promoting, including declared-association with one of the controlling bodies of the topic area to which he has expanded WP articles and placed the suspect images, the AMA. He is around 35 years old and therefore unlikely to own the rights to 1960s and 1970s images (one being from a famous museum). None of those suspected have adequate source declared, again indicating inexperience. This is an example File:1st silver vase team.jpg. The following may be original works: File:Jeff Fredette.jpg, File:2014 ISDE Helmet.jpg. This next one is an old commons file (seen in the Metadata), a derivative created by simply renaming for unknown reasons: File:Racing stripes were applied to the Cunningham team's racecars beginning in 1951.jpg.

I did a quick check a few weeks back using Google image search and Tineye but with little results. What's the best way of dealing with the image-tagging needed? I think there will be an 'images by erekkudla for discussion' option, but it's beyond my experience, if someone can take this on? I can draft a courtesy message to the editor's WP Talk page, and I'm not too worried about the promotion and copyvio prose (probably a lot of which is unsourced) at this point, but the Commons aspect should be formalised. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
Yes, right. I don't think any of these are own works. Two already deleted as obvious copyright violations. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Erekkudla‎ for the rest. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Yann.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 08:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to make sure

Can i import this image to commons? Author died 100 years ago. It should be PD in both countries. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: Yes, please import to Commons. The {{PD-old-100}} license should be appropriate. Kaldari (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 08:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ireland?

user:Shamshamster1234 uploaded a bunch of images wrongly labeled as "own work", because they took photos of old photos and old newspapers, with no particular provenance. So far, I know how to handle these - just standard copyright violation. But of those old newspapers, many were (or can reasonably be inferred to have been) published pseudonymously or anonymously in Ireland in 1939. That would make them PD, right? If so, which tag should be used? DS (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. {{PD-anon-70-EU}} and {{PD-1996}} can be used. I hadn't looked at Irish copyright history much, but photographs taken before 1963 (or whenever their 1963 law went into effect, may be October 1 1964) remained as a term of 50 years from creation. Photos taken sometime in 1963 or later became 50 years from publication, and other types of anonymous works were also 50 years from publication (most works were 50pma). That did not change until their 2000 law which would make everything 70pma (and anonymous works 70 years from publication), so the older terms remained on the URAA date. The 2000 law has some complex transitional stuff as well that I haven't fully worked through, but for anonymous works published before 1946 they should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
What exactly would justify the inference that these newspapers were published anonymously or pseudonymously? Given the lack of information on the file description pages that I saw, I find that claim somewhat surprising. — Pajz (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, I saw no names listed next to the articles (except for one editorial column by the pseudonymous "Finnbarr McColumn"). I inferred that this meant they were anonymous; I realize that sometimes terms have specific precise meanings which may be different from their colloquial ones. DS (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
DragonflySixtyseven, sure. Well, I think in some ways the {PD-anon-70-EU} template a bit misleading to begin with as it suggests that there is one law for all the EU member states. But, really, what we have is a European directive that just talks about the term of protection for anonymous and pseudonymous works - 70 years after the work is lawfully made available to the public - (without a scintilla of discussion of what anonymous and pseudonymous works actually are), and at the same time we have differing notions of "anonymous and pseudonymous" in the laws of the member states. However, in all the jurisdictions that I know, it would not suffice for the assumption of an anonymous work that you find one copy of the work without the author's name on it. Laws generally require that in order to be able to rely on these special rules for anonymous works, people have to do additional research and only if that doesn't uncover the identity of the author, you may treat it as anonymous. For instance in the UK s 57(1) CDPA requires a "reasonable inquiry to ascertain the identity of the author", and looking at the Irish Copyright and Related Rights Act, it uses very similar language when discussing the legitimate use of anonymous/pseudonymous works: "The copyright in a work is not infringed by an act undertaken when, or pursuant to arrangements made when (a) it is not possible to ascertain the identity of the author of the work by reasonable enquiry, and (b) it is reasonable to assume that the copyright has expired." (Section 88) In fact, if you think about it, such an enquiry is somewhat inevitable anyway as a practical matter because under EU requirements if the author "discloses his identity" during the 70 years after publication, the term of protection jumps back to 70 years after his death (Article 1(3) Term Directive and ss 32(1), 32(2) Copyright and Related Rights Act [Ireland]). But if you just look at the copy of the newspaper from 1939, how would you ever know if the author has disclosed his identity at a later point? // So what is a reasonable enquiry? It seems very unclear. For the UK, G. Cornish suggests that we should look for guidance to the Intellectual Property Office's guidelines about tracing copyright owners in the context of orphan work status (GP Cornish, Copyright: Interpreting the law for libraries, archives and information services 6th edn (Facet 2015) para 4.18). If we do that, we find this document for literary works, in which for newspapers the following is recommended, among others things: check orphan work registers, legal deposits, library indexes, catalogues and authority files maintained by libraries and other institutions, and check the databases of all the relevant collecting societies. I'm sure reasonable minds can differ as to the required extent of the additional research, but what is clear to me is that merely looking at the original newspaper cannot be enough. Best, — Pajz (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
In general Irish copyright law follows the 70 year pma rule and while a newspaper photo may not identify the photographer, only the story' author, most of the newspapers at that time employed their own photographers. So the works are certainly not, per se, anonymous, we just have not identified who they are, which is why some effort must be made to research who took those photos before use of the {{PD-anon-70-EU}} template. If the newspaper still exists, they may assist in that research or this company http://www.lensmen.ie/ were often commissioned to supply press photos, plus the National Library of Ireland has an extensive database. I'm not certain any 50 year rule applied in Ireland other than to Irish government works per {{PD-IrishGov}}. Ww2censor (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
If it was published without a named author it was published anonymously. If the author was named within 70 years, then the term would become 70pma, yes -- so that is not a guarantee that it remained anonymous. But if the initial publication of something was anonymous, it's a reasonable assumption to make. By all means do a search -- but once we know the original publication was anonymous, the probabilities swing pretty far into the likelihood that it remained anonymous, and to me is not enough doubt left to rise to the level of COM:PRP. If someone discovers the author later, and they were known to be the author within 70 years of publication, then we would delete then. If an author only becomes known now, it would not revive a copyright -- they would have to be generally known before the 70 year limit. So asking a newspaper to name an author now would not count for a 1939 work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Civic disaster.jpg

This file, File:Civic disaster.jpg, is tagged with {{PD-scan-two}}, {{PD-Canada-anon}}, and {{PD-1923}}. Yet I don't know how the Canadian tag is relevant - as it is a work from the UK, with the source listed as a UK website with no mention of Canada, so surely it should be a public domain UK tag? I don't know enough about this sort of stuff to be certain about changing things though, so am asking here for more experienced input. Thanks. Seagull123 (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

pinging the user who uploaded the photo, and the user who added the PD tags: @Guinnessorig and Guanaco. Seagull123 (talk) 12:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I changed the licenses to {{PD-UK-unknown}} and {{PD-US-expired}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

What copyright law applies to a photo automatically taken by a USSR/Russian space probe in 1959? Bubba73 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The same law as applies to all images from spacecraft. Ruslik (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
And what is that law? (It is currently relevant to a deletion discussion.) Bubba73 (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
You should stop speaking in such cryptic terms and provide a specific example. Ruslik (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I was trying to ask the question generically. Specifically, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luna 3 moon.jpg. Bubba73 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Bringing my own uploads to attention

Hello, I have finally gotten around to uploading some photos that I have taken last year in the Communication Museum in Saint Petersburg. Bug I think that an extra pair (or dozen pairs) of eyes are needed on the photos listed below, to ensure that I am not uploading copyright violations. I believe that they should remain here, since they were created by the USSR postal service, but I admit that something like this may look a little bit close to be copyrighted by some individual.

Please feel free to nominate for deletion, if you feel it is appropriate, but please do not "speedy" them. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, What is the copyright status of British newsreels from 1931, i.e. [3], [4] and [5]? If these are still under a copyright, when does it expire? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

According to [6], 50 years after the broadcast date, so any broadcast before 1969 is out of copyright, this excludes films, literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works. You need to check if the music at the start is out of copyright, or edit \ mute it out. I don't see any template you can use.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Isn't a newsreel a film, though, rather than a broadcast? Hence 70 years from death of director/producer, or from making available to public if anonymous. --bjh21 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Yann, "films made before June 1, 1957 were not entitled to protection as films, but as a series of photographs and as dramatic works. The period of protection to which such a film is entitled under the old provisions of the 1988 Act is therefore that applicable to photographs and to dramatic works made before that date." G Davies, N Caddick, and G Harbottle, Copinger and Skone James on Copyright, 17th edn (Sweet & Maxwell 2016) vol 1, para 6-83. Under the 1911 Copyright Act (which was the one in force when the newsreels were created), "photographs [...] were granted a fixed period of protection of 50 years from the date of the making of the original negative." Id, para 6-39. Under the 1956 Act, the term of copyright in a photograph taken before June 1, 1957, continued to be "the period of 50 years from the end of the year in which it was taken". Id, para 6-46. Since they entered the public domain before the 1988 Act (which extended the term of protection) (id, para 6-51), they might have been out of copyright for some time. However, when the Term Directive was transposed, copyright protection of the photographs possibly revived. Under Article 10(2) of the Term Directive, transposed in the UK through Article 16(d) of the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1995/3297/regulation/16/made), protection of the photographs would have potentially revived (to 70 years post mortem auctoris) if (1) they qualify as photographic works, (2) were on 1st July 1995 protected in another EEA state under legislation relating to copyright or related rights. As to (1), it seems highly likely that at least one of the "shots" would qualify as a photographic work both under the (very lax) UK standard and the (somewhat higher) EU standard (compare id, para 3-263; just look at Painer). As to (2), this is a known issue, and I refer for a summary to C Angelopoulos, "Term Directive", in T Dreier and PB Hugenholtz (eds), Concise European Copyright Law, 2nd edn (Kluwer 2016), 335, 371: "In Spain however, on 1 July 1995 all categories of works, including works of photography, were protected for the much longer term of 70 or 80 years pma (depending on the date of death of the author). Applying the EC Treaty's prohibition of discrimination, photographs made by EU nationals who died less than 80 years before 1 July 1995 were protected in Spain on that date, making them eligible for the harmonized term of protection of 70 years pma and revival of copyright throughout the EU, as long as they qualify according to the originality requirements of art. 6 [Term Directive, -pajz]." That being said, I would submit that we should, under Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle, assume protection for 70 years pma. — Pajz (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@BevinKacon, Bjh21, and Pajz: Thanks for your comments.
In addition, some of the newsreels cover events in USA, so it is confusing. In that case, I assume that they were published in USA first. Is {{PD-US-no notice}} OK for them? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Pathé films

Hi, What is the copyright status of Category:Pathé films? Since Charles Pathé died in 1957, and that films are copyrighted 70 years pma in France, films made by Charles Pathé himself (or his brothers) are not in the public domain in France. I was not able to find any date of death for his brothers. May be concerned:

What do you think? Regards, Yann (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the director. File:Au temps des pharaons 1910.jpg is now PD since Velle died in 1948 ; File:La valse à la mode (1908).webm is anonymous, hence PD [7] ; same for File:Group leaving church in Bohemia, Czech Republic, 1897.webm [8]. — Racconish 💬 15:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Racconish: Hi and thanks,
I changed the license for File:La valse à la mode (1908).webm and File:Au temps des pharaons 1910.jpg, but we have a problem with Gaston Velle (Q3099177). Wikipedia and Wikidata give 1953 with a reference for Gaston Velle. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I checked all reference sites, and they all give 1948. Then the reference given on Wikipedia doesn't mention that name, so I removed it. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Yann, agreed. 1953 seems at this point to be based on self-published sources or original research. I would go with the BNF catalog which gives 1948 [9]. — Racconish 💬 16:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

If is said that "In a fair amount of cases, a logo is considered a trademark without also being a copyright. This is most often the case for simple logos that only contain letters or simple geometric shapes. The rationale here is that such simple logos do not meet the threshold of originality required under U.S. copyright law." In this regard, whether This logo] of Mumbai Internaltional Airpot will be under copyright or it will be out of copyright. --Sushant savla (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sushant savla: We have to account for copyright laws in both the U.S. and the country the work was published in (India). According to COM:TOO India, these have the same threshold of originality laws. In my opinion, this is a borderline case, but it is probably above the threshold of originality because it is composed of more than a few distinct elements that are not common shapes. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that's above the U.S. line. That's not a simple geometric shape like a square or a triangle. Given enough elements, you can also get a copyright on a creative arrangement of simple geometric shapes, and that probably qualifies on that score even if the individual shapes do not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Verifying that a Youtube video is licensed CC-BY

Hello. I am having a bit issue determining if a video a licensed under CC on Youtube. A video on this Youtube search shows that "OWWC BlizzCon 2018 - Day 2" is indeed licensed under CC BY, but I cannot find any licensing info on the video page itself. It was a live video, so maybe that's why the licensing isn't under the description for some reason? Just wondering if anyone knew if there is any way to verify the copyright status on the video before I reuse it. Thanks. Pbroks13 (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

We had a similar issue here, and ended up deleting the video. I would tend to trust the actual label on the page more than the YouTube search engine, so if it appears in a search result but isn't marked on the page, I would consider it not CC BY. But you could try emailing the YouTube user to ask whether they labeled it CC BY, or to change the label if they haven't. As a side note, most of that video would likely be copyrighted as proprietary game screenshots. --GRuban (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I was looking for non-in-game content. And after a bit more research on the YT forums, I also found that this seems to be a common issue that dates back a while. Thanks for the response. Pbroks13 (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Pbroks13: I cant find the video from the search results. If you did, please watch out for the tiny Related beneath the video descriptions on the search results page. Some searches selecting CC will still show you non-CC Related contents (but some do not, AFAICR searching CC and sorting by upload date at the same time will get rid of all the Related results). Stupid youtube algorithms and UI.--Roy17 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: I see now some that have the "related" tag underneath the description, but strangely, the one I am referring to does not have one. However, sorting by upload date did get rid of (as far as I can tell) all non-CC videos, which is super helpful. Thanks! Pbroks13 (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Roy17 (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:PD-Japan-oldphoto

Is there anything whatsoever stopping this template from applying to en:File:SMS Arcona NH 65764.tiff, which was taken in Nagasaki by persons unknown, of some nationality undetermined? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where a photograph was taken; legally, it matters where it was published, and occasionally the nationality of the author. Unless you can establish that Japan is the place of first publication, that license doesn't cover it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
This is certainly {{PD-US-expired}}. Also public domain in Europe, as per {{Anonymous-EU}}. Alternatively, you can use {{PD-old-assumed}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Side question. I cant see any previews except the 2nd revision. Clicking a preview shows me Error Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes. It had the same error when it was still on enwp. Do you have the same problem?--Roy17 (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Chess 3D.png and File:Chess 3D Animation.png

These seem quite complex to be "own work" and there's really no EXIF data or other information provided to help verify that it is. The animation looks like an in-game screenshot of some kind, and both files can be seen online here and here. It looks like the uploader is working on a draft at en:User:Vuong Thanh Tai/sandbox so it's possible the uploader is the game designer. Can these files be kept as is or do they at least need to be OTRS verified? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

OTRS (or fair use) for me. The second file mentioned above is a straight (slightly squashed) copy of an image available at your amazon link, and while there is a bit of additional detail on the first one than is present in the found images, it seems most likely that it is available somewhere, and it's at the very least derivative. And actually, I do see versions with that extra little bit available, meaning this may just be a version where the border etc. was cropped out. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at these Clindberg. I will tag the files with {{Npd}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Is there a copyright on simple sounds like in File:Visual Tour of Ireland, April-May 1902 (with added sound).webm? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

A soundtrack is almost always above TOO. Keeping the soundtrack significantly weakens the claim a restored silent film is PD. — Racconish 💬 15:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I removed the sound whenever there is voice or music, but simple sound effects? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Somebody had to create them. This is why some people use copyright free sounds. — Racconish 💬 15:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The copyright is on the sound recording, not necessarily the sounds themselves. So while the sounds may not have any authorship, the recording still does. Just like in music, there is a separate copyright of the songwriter (typically owned by the band member individuals, and licensed through ASCAP and the like), and also the recording copyright (typically owned by the labels). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Greek postcard from 1911

This Greek postcard from 1911 en:File:Nafplion Train Station 1911.jpg is on ENwiki only. Wouldn't this be public domain in Greece as well as the US? The author has almost certainly been dead for quite some time.. If he was 21 in 1911, he would have been born in 1890. See: Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Greece WhisperToMe (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

{{PD-old-assumed}} says 120 years, which this is a little over a decade short of. w:1890#Births says the last person clearly born in 1890 to die died in 2006; there are many names on that list who outlived 1949, which would make them copyright in the EU.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Would the artist or the publisher be the bearer of the copyright? Since the artist's name is not stated, if he would otherwise have the copyright, how would Greek law handle this? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
If the author's name was not stated, it was published anonymously, and I'd think {{PD-anon-70-EU}} would apply. If the author's name became public before 1982 it would change things, so it's worth Googling a little bit to see if there is further information out there -- particularly to confirm the author was not named on the back, which was rare but possible -- but failing that I'd say it's OK to upload. But not on the basis of assuming the author has been dead for 70 years, that's all. Oh, I see the back is linked on the image (it's often good to upload those, then overwrite with the front, for documentation purposes). I'm not sure if that is the author name or publisher name or just further description, to be honest -- would be best to document that inscription as well. Greek copyright law says the publisher represents the copyright in an anonymous work until the author is made public, but that type of copyright would have expired -- either the author is known and the PD status depends on their lifetime, or it remained anonymous for 70 years and is fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
... and I also missed that it is documented, in that it says it was "published by N. Christopoulos, Nafplion". If that is just a publisher name, then we're OK I think. If that is the photographer as well, it's problematic without knowing when they died, because a named author means it's not anonymous. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The inscription on the back seems to say "ΕΚΔΌΣΙΣ", which Google translates as "publishing", so I think the photographer is uncredited on the card itself, even if it was actually taken by the publisher. --bjh21 (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Уместна ли загрузка (Is the download appropriate?)

Прошу пояснить мне, уместна ли загрузка приобретённого .pdf файла книги Хронографическая история. Мхитар Айриванкский (Айриванеци) в котором явно сказано, что "Текст приводится по изданию: Хронографическая история, составленная отцом Мехитаром, вардапетом Айриванкским: Пер. К. Патканова. — СПб., 1869."

I ask you to explain to me whether the download of the acquired .pdf file of the book chronographic history is appropriate. Mkhitar Ayrivanksky (Ayrivanetsi) in which it is explicitly stated that "The text is given according to the publication: Chronographic history, compiled by Father Mehitar, with Ayrdankovsky’s lane: Trans. K. Patkanov. - SPb., 1869." (machine translation by GoogleTranslate) --Gorvzavodru (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Moved from Commons talk:Licensing. Yann (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gorvzavodru: Замечательный вопрос! Всегда стоит учитывать, что копирайт может быть как на всю работу целиком, так и на отдельные её части. В описаном случае очевидно, что копирайт самого текста уже закончился и сам текст может быть использован кем угодно для любых целей. Соответственно с этой стороны проблем нет. Но вёрстка самой книги также может создать отдельный копирайт... а может и не создавать. Тут вопрос в том, было-ли принято какое-либо креативное рещение при этой вёрстке. Как правило ответ для многих книг - это да. Они, к примеру часто вручную решают где переносить слова, чтобы абзаци легче читались, помещались целиком на странице (по возможности), чтобы не было одного последнего слова абзаца или главы на следующей странице, и тд. Такие решения ведут к созданию нового копирайта. К счастью банальная подборка шрифта не создаёт нового копирайта в большинстве случаев. Теперь... уместна-ли загрузка. Чтобы ответить на этот вопрос нужно знать как верстали текст в этой книге, так как я этого не знаю, я не могу ответить. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Насчёт вёрстки - не понял. В викитеке же всё наново перевёрстывается. А этот текст нужен только как источник для викитеки. В общем, загрузил я, для лучшего эксперимента. File:Мхитар Айриванкский Хронографическая история.pdf К тому же, шрифтовое оформление и разрывы абзацев - несложно мне и поменять перед загрузкой на Викисклад. Превентивно не стал так делать. Могу задним числом сделать. Можете теперь что дополнительное сказать, User:Gone_Postal? Ссылки на файл из Викитеки - сделал. --Gorvzavodru (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Но вы-же хотите сюда залить PDF файл в котором возможно присутствует сложная вёрстка. Тот факт, что она вам не нужна, не означает, что вы можете нарушать авторское право. Викитека будет использовать только текст, создавая свою собственную вёрстку, так что у них никаких проблем. Вопрос в том, можно или нельзя загружать ваш PDF на Викисклад. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gorvzavodru: Я посмотрел(а) на ваш файл. Я далеко не профессионал в вёрстке книг, но мне кажется, что в этом случае она целиком автоматическая, и соответственно не создала дополнительного авторства. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Спасибо за высказанное мнение. (это вообще очень странная книга. Есть у меня мнение, что это они вообще просто материалы из интернета тупо перепечатывают....) --Gorvzavodru (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Soccer.ru

I just found out about this website and this template, so I want to make things very clear before upload any pictures from that source. Can I upload ANY picture from that website on Commons?--SirEdimon (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: Yes, why did you doubt it?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for the answer. I don't doubt it. I just wanted to be sure before uploading images. I just don't want to incur in copyvio. Again, thanks for your quick reply.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@SirEdimon: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
There is some discussion on the template's talk page that might be relevant. -kyykaarme (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeanne Menjoulet Flickr licensing

Flickr user Jeanne Menjoulet changed all the photos uploaded on or before 22 June 2019 to CC-BY-ND 2.0. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, just hope that those copied to Commons were flickrreviewed when it was time. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Does Twitter logo (like a bird) meet Commons:Threshold of originality? Why Twitter bird logo is not uploaded even logos of some other services were uploaded with {{PD-shape}}? - PlavorSeol (T | C) 17:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. E.g. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Twitter bird logo. And why do you put no index in this page? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

upload.wikimedia.org - available for re-use?

I want to re-use an image available in upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/ rather than via the usual Commons URL. This is for a print publication, probably with a companion ebook. A. Is it okay to use this image? B. If so, what citation should appear with it?

The specific URL is https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Cliffs_of_the_Koolau_Range%2C_Oahu_58.jpg. It would be one of many illustrations in a personal memoir by my father (now 92 years old and, erm, not particularly computer-savvy). — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:282:4302:A400:112:68E:80E2:EF58 (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@2601:282:4302:A400:112:68E:80E2:EF58: There is no difference: that URL is simply File:Cliffs of the Koolau Range, Oahu 58.jpg at the original size. Note the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License which dictates the attribution and usage: you may reuse, reproduce, or modify the image in any way not prohibited by the license (and note: the file on Commons was originally transferred from a file on Flickr with the same license). The creator of the image appears now goes by the Flickr username LuxTonnerre: you might contact the author himself for his preferred attribution. See Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for general info on reusing free images in various outlets. Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Credit line gives advice on the wording needed to satisfy the license. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Original poster says: Thank you, --Animalparty, from a total noob! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:282:4302:A400:112:68E:80E2:EF58 (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Roy17 (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Question about the license for a (USFWS) photo

File:Masked Boobies Courting (6741932765).jpg

Is this photo correctly licensed? My slight concern is that the EXIF includes: "© K. Lindsey Kramer" Many thanks Aa77zz (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aa77zz: COM:NOTCOPYVIO. The description says "Photo: Lindsay Kramer/USFWS", so Kramer is a USFWS employee. No problem. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, the reasoning can work in the opposite direction. The EXIF of this photo has a specific notice that K. Lindsey Kramer owns the copyright, which means that Kramer did not take this photo as a USFWS employee. There may have been some permission granted to USFWS to use the photo but no transfer of copyright. The career summary does not mention USFWS, although there's no mention of the years 2007-2012 when this photo is supposed to have been taken. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
On flickr there is also this other copy of the same photo, but under CC BY-NC and with a different creation date (2011 instead of 2012). (At least they correctly spelled "Lindsey" on this one.) It looks like USFWS do not really know what they're doing. Also, the same situation exists with File:A pair of omilu or blue trevally (6741932671).jpg (flickr copy 1, NC, flickr copy 2) and File:Uhu uliuli, or spectacled parrotfish (6741932553).jpg (flickr copy 1, NC, flickr copy 2). -- Asclepias (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There are several things to keep in mind here: 1) Under the current law putting up (c) sign is completely meaningless, it neither adds nor removes copyright from any work. The work is copyrighted at the moment it has been recorded on a tangible medium, and adding the sign to something that is not copyrightable or no longer copyrighted does not give anybody extra rights; 2) Creative Commons are not laws, but are licences, such licences only apply to things that are copyrighted, if the work is not copyrighted it cannot be distributed under any CC licence (you can apply CC-PD tag to it, but CC and Commons both discourage that due to confusion it creates); 3) You can release any work under multiple licences if you are a copyright holder, and although other people cannot violate those licences, you can (because you did not have to agree to the licence in the first place), for example if I make a photograph, I can plaster "Copyrighted, all rights reserved, I will kill you if you ever use it" on it (or in metadata) and then release it under a free licence on Commons, another person may have legal problems doing that, but as a copyright holder, I can do anything. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
I’ll see myself out. - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak

An interesting "joint work" example

Here's an interesting art piece with a potentially wacky copyright situation.

  • The design was presumably conceived by Denali National Park artist-in-residence Sonja Hinrichsen[10]
  • Denali artists-in-residence retain copyrights on their works[11]
  • The work was actually executed by volunteers, who may or may not have included National Park Service employees
  • The photograph was presumably taken by a National Park Service employee (photo credit is "NPS Photo")

I believe that the copyright for the work probably rests with all the volunteers who did the snowshoeing, and not with Hinrichsen (important info on joint works). I'm unsure what the effect is if one of those voluteers was an NPS employee, but absent confirmation of that I think this would be a copyright violation, unless any one of the volunteers was to release it with a free license. – BMacZero (🗩) 22:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  •  Comment Always remember, Copyright only protects creative expression. There is a threshhold of how small the creativity can be, but it needs to be there at all. So, if a person has given those volunteers exact places to place their feet, then the volunteers did not express any of their creativity. However, if they were given a rouph layout and they were following it, but could also change ever-so-slightly; only then we need to start discussing whether they were employees at all. In this case I do not know enough about the process to make up an opinion. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 02:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Would be interesting to see if snow qualifies as a "fixed medium" in the first place. If the design was drawn first, that would solely be the NPS artist. I probably would not worry about copyright though unless we had a specific complaint from a possible copyright owner, or we have something of a court precedent on something like this, which I'm not sure exists. It could be considered more like folk art rather than a joint work, it may not be in a fixed medium, the volunteers could well be considered work for hire since they were directed by the NPS (or better, since it was "specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work"). Which, in turn, would make the whole thing PD-USGov. In general I don't like deleting anything where we cannot point to a court case or some other kind of precedent; if something like that has not been a copyright problem in the entire history of copyright, it's probably OK for a reason we haven't thought about -- we aren't that expert. Extrapolating copyright to new situations and deleting on that theoretical basis can give Commons a bad name (and in my opinion, deservedly in cases like that). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
* I think the work would qualify as fixed by virtue of having been recorded in a photograph[12]. But it does make sense to me that we probably shouldn't delete this image off of our speculation about the nature of joint works. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
* Snow is definitely a fixed medium. Something doesn't have to be long lasting, just fixed. An ice sculpture, a snow castle, or the specifically arranged snowpaths are fixed. We have a sequence of events here. 0) (probably) Somebody draws an outline of how people are suppose to walk, this can be the first copyright, but it was almost certainly done by the government employee. 1) People walk in the snow. The question is are they told how to walk or do they transform 2D plan into the 3D surface (the latter is definitely copyrightable). Also they are probably, but not certainly acting as volunteers for the government in general. If they are volunteers for this specific project, it is actually worse, because that can create a copyright transfer. US government can own the copyright, it just cannot generate the copyright, so if volunteers were volunteering only for this project, they could generate copyright and then transfer it to the government. 2) The photo is taken, transferring work again into 2D world. This is again potentially copyrightable, but I am sure that this is done by the government employee, and thus is free from additional copyright. So the question is step 1. And I do not have enough information to make an oppinion on that. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
* Snow is not definitely a fixed, tangible medium. From the compendium: Specifically, the Office cannot register a work created in a medium that is not intended to exist for more than a transitory period, or in a medium that is constantly changing. They go on: Most visual art works satisfy the fixation requirement, because the deposit copy(ies) or identifying material submitted with the application usually indicate that the work is capable of being perceived for more than a transitory duration. However, the fact that uncopyrightable material has been fixed through reproduction does not make the underlying material copyrightable. For example, a photograph of a fireworks display may be a copyrightable fixation of the pho- tographic image, but the fireworks themselves do not constitute copyrightable subject matter. So, the fact you may be able to photograph the snow does not necessarily make it copyrightable. The drawing of how they were supposed to walk, yes that would be copyrightable. The photo itself is also copyrightable, but that says nothing about the photographed subject. Very little else about this is "definitely" -- some of us have learned more than the average layman about copyright, but we are far from experts. Were the people told to walk in a slavish imitation of the pattern, or could they exercise creative judgement themselves? And even if so, this would seem to be a contribution to a collective work, meaning that it would fall under the definition of "work for hire" meaning that there is no transfer, and everything is PD-USGov if a copyright even exists. Someone can diagram what fireworks are supposed to look like, but a photo of the resulting fireworks has no copyright encumberments (in the U.S., at least) and this could be the same situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
* @Clindberg: Interesting about the snow. Thank you very much, and I stand corrected. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
* Well of course, you also may be right :-) "Transitory" could only count when it's changing before our eyes. I just don't think it's definite either way, and I don't like guessing how courts would expand the scope of copyright when it comes to deletions. We have enough problems deleting stuff that there are solid precedents for... Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Untifler

I'll appreciate it if fellow Commoners review this action of user:Julo, especially since they actually didn't keep those files - deletion templates are still on pages of files involved.
It looks somewhat odd for me, when one of fellow admins uses arguments more suitable for a speedy deletion case than for a regular DR. I've nominated some maps, uploaded by a multiple copyvio uploader. Most of them (example) have no description, author and source specified, some (example) are based on previously deleted files. I find these doubts significant enough for a regular deletion request as per COM:PCP policy, so I'd prefer to get a more detailed explanation, why files may be kept only because I didn't give any evidence or any proof of copyvio and how this decision fits the COM:EVID requirements. Thank you. Sealle (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Kazan Khanate map Tatar.svg has over fifty uses on various Wikipedias, and was uploaded in 2007, and is one of the files nominated for deletion. You're arguing for deletion of heavily-used files that have been here for a decade by an uploader that hasn't been here for six years. I think deleting such files without any actual evidence is massively disruptive, and reduces the trust that Wikipedia has in us, and our deletion of files in us already annoys a lot on Wikipedias. Also, it's incredibly frustrating to have work deleted or pages broken because people decide to question the images after they've been here a decade and the uploader is no longer here to discuss them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a good example of a reasonable closure of a DR as keep. No evidence has been provided. If you have evidence that these files were some sort of copyright violation, please feel free to reopen the DR with that evidence. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Audio of U.S. politicians' townhalls

I am interested in posting audio of U.S. town halls on Wikimedia Commons, in conjunction to posting transcripts of them on Wikisource. I wanted to get some insight into copyright issues. I will describe one file I have which I think is pretty clearly in the public domain, then ask about some harder hypothetical cases.

A U.S. Congressman held a public telephone town hall, then posted a link to its audio on Facebook. I have a copy of this audio file. It seems to me that the town hall audio constitutes "a work prepared by an officer or employee" of the federal government "as part of that person's official duties," which puts it into public domain by law. Am I correct?

Official duties: suppose that the Congressman did not use public funds to run the town hall. Does that put holding the town hall outside of his official duties, and thus impact whether the audio is in the public domain?

Public release: suppose the Congressman continues to hold town halls but stops posting the audio of them. Does this change things? If I make a recording of a public town hall open to all, can my recording be put in the public domain with no need to obtain permissions?

Venue: does whether the town hall is held in a physical hall, or via telephone, change whether audio recordings of it are in the public domain?

Finally, what if a state level legislator (instead of a federal one) was the one holding the town halls? Federal law then doesn't apply, but these are public events open to all. Is audio of them in the public domain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis.the.Anarcho-syndicalist (talk • contribs) 04:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Wonderful idea!
    • Official duties This is an interesting one, there is a similar case, where the state of Georgia has attempted to copyright its laws ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9VOzCpmLlg ) by using a private company to publish them with notes. I am in no way a lawyer, but I think that where the money flows is not the only question. In your case it would still make it public domain. However, if the private company were recording the town hall, they do have a copyright on the recording. So you will need to ask whether the recording itself was done by somebody who was a government employee.
    • Public release This has nothing to do with copyright. If the files were in public domain, they wee in public domain. You cannot "recall" them by no longer publishing them yourself. If you make a recording yourself, you are free to release them into public domain, or to publish them under the free licences that are available on Commons. If you wish to achieve maximum closeness to public domain, you can look into CC-0, if you want to make sure that somebody cannot then take your recording, alter it, and then disallow others from redistributing it, you will need a viral licence, for example CC-BY-SA.
    • Venue No, such things do not matter, unless they alter some other aspect of the recording (for example, who is doing the recording) as well.
  • P.S. Hoping to see your contributions soon. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 04:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for input. Some follow up questions:

  • If a politician has publicly posted a link to an audio file, is that file henceforth in the public domain? The link to the audio of a town hall I have transcribed is now dead, can I upload the file to Wikimedia Commons?
  • I hadn't noticed the 'fixedness' requirement for copyright. Town halls are not fixed and so they are not events subject to copyright. A transcript of one is subject to copyright, since the work of transcribing it is 'creative', but if I make it myself I can release it into the public domain and post to Wikisource. Is this thinking correct?
  • Many existing transcripts of audio addresses in Wikisource do not supply a link to an audio source, but without an audio source there is no way for readers to check the accuracy of the transcript, or to listen to it for information not in the transcript such as the speaker's tone. I very much want to include audio sources.
  • However, town hall audio sources are much more open to questioning whether they are in the public domain than transcripts. This project is new and there are very few cases where people have uploaded town hall recordings and/or transcripts. Should I just upload an audio source to determine what the thinking of the community is to that particular file? It seems to me that each file will constitute a different case which may have to be discussed separately, until a tradition of posting town hall transcripts is established. Dennis.the.Anarcho-syndicalist (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

National Standard of People's Republic of China

The State Council has declared a plan to made all national standard public available online for free by 2020, with a subgoal to make all mandatory and non-adapted standard available by the end of 2018, and all adapted standard available by the end of 2020. Wikimedia should have a license for that.Viztor (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ask the State Council to give us one. "Available online for free" neither allows us to modify or distribute them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hypothetical re: digital retouching becoming digital painting

At what point does a digital retouch of a photo become a digital painting, which only has that photo as reference? I’ve got a photo of a newspaper columnist from over on en.wiki that is still under copyright (assumed) but nobody’s sure exactly who holds that copyright. It’s a tiny scan of a photocopy of a halftone head shot of the columnist that I have been cleaning up. First I upsampled the image to a decent size, and then I did a lot of heavy retouching on the photo to get it to look decent, removing the moiré, etc. I doubt there’s a single original pixel left in the image. The thing I wonder is, now that I’ve put all this work into it, is it a new piece that I can share via Commons under my copyright, or is it still the original copyrighted image? When does it become a new creative work? Taking this back to analog, if a portrait painter works from a photo, is her copyright invalidated by the photograph owner’s copyright? All input appreciated. - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 01:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

In analog, the Pop Art movement ran into these issues back in the 60s. For example, Roy Lichtenstein created paintings which were close adaptations of existing comic book art, such as with Whaam! and Drowning Girl. Lichtenstein never reimbursed or acknowledged the original artists, and the copyright holders of the original art never brought suit against him. Lichtenstein did not use the original art as templates but only as inspiration, however, which is one difference with your digital artwork. Dennis.the.Anarcho-syndicalist (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I suppose even though I’ve changed it significantly, it still falls under Commons:Derivative works. I will try to track down the copyright owner, in all my spare time! Lol. Thanks. - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 01:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Once I’ve found the copyright owner (in this case, the publishing company that now owns the Dayton Daily News, Dayton, Ohio) how do I find out whether they renewed their copyright? The original photo was work for hire published before 1969. - Tim D. Williamson yak-yak 02:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Coins in Austria

Can anyone fluent in German determine whether what's discussed here mean that an image of an Austrian Euro coin is acceptable under Commons rules? Thanks --Discasto talk 07:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC) PS: feel free to move this discussion to Commons_talk:Currency

Sorry, it seems as if this discussion is already in there --Discasto talk 07:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

File:The Blind Boys of Alabama perform "Free at Last" on Feb 9th 2010 at the White House.webm Copyright status spirituals (What if a performance is made at the White House, who owns the copyright of the file ?) -- Eatcha (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The performance is definitely copyrighted, even if the song and recording aren't. Kaldari (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

ICRC photos from Spanish Civil War

Hello! I have recently found some interesting photos for a series of articles that I'm writing. This photos can be found here. I have been discussing with user:DarwIn about this and it is difficult to find if this images are in the public domain:

  • The ICRC allows using their images if the use is not commercial (so we shouldn't upload them to Commons)
  • But, this images were taken in Spain between 1936-1939 and the author is completely unknown: ICRC gives themselves as copyright holders
  • They weren't published in Spain and surely (I assume) weren't done by a Spanish, as they were visiting a prisoner's camp within an international visit.
  • They are archived in Switzerland, as the code says (GEN for Geneve) and even the publication names are in French. So I think Swiss laws apply here.
  • It is 80 years since the images were done and as they have a collective title we can think they were published in a sort of memorandum (or maybe a book?). PD-Old should be used?
  • I think we can use {{PD-Switzerland-old-unknown}} because we know that the author is unknown and the institution uses its name for the author copyright.

But I would like to have other opinions before uploading them and then having someone working on deletion. Ping @Clindberg: . -Theklan (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi,
I think the main issue is whether these pictures were published at the time or not. If they were published in Switzerland more than 70 years ago, and that no author is mentioned by the copyright holder, they are in the public domain in Switzerland. Some people would say that they are affected by URAA. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

OTRS request: wrongly claimed ownership

We got a mail. File:Gilead-Flag.gif was uploaded on 2006, the author is Voldemort. The picture can be found here. The sender says that “the image was actually made by me nearly a year earlier and posted on the FOTW site” and “please either change the name or else remove his name as creator and leave it blank if this is easier”. The earliest archive is after the uploading. Pinging @Voldemort. What to do? Bencemac (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we trust Voldemort? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
FOTW says "Last modified: 2006-01-21", that doesn't look like something that could be faked by anyone but the site owner. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bencemac: and @Alexis Jazz: Why ? I'm editor since 12 December 2004 on English Wikipedia. Please stop linking me to Dark Lord. -- Voldemort (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bencemac: , who sent the E-mail  ? -- Voldemort (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That is not public. Bencemac (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bencemac: https://web.archive.org/web/20060127200120/http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/keywordg.html contains a link to http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fic_thmt.html for the keyword "gilead" in January 2006, before the upload. https://web.archive.org/web/20060127005600/http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/keywordh.html links the page for the keyword "handmaid's tale", same date. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That only proves that the webpage existed before 2006-01-21(that too if you trust a random unimportant website). How does it proves that it (the image) was there before my upload ?? Please believe me. Anyone can send an email and claim anything, but he did not provided the proof required, because he is lying. BTW why do I need to steal a flag from a stupid website. Have a great day boys! -- Voldemort (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Why "please either change the name or else remove his name as creator and leave it blank if this is easier" ? I think he is a fanboy and has a problem with my username, if that's the case I can consider changing my user-name if he stops lying about the image. -- Voldemort (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Voldemort: Your username is associated with the main antagonist of a $25 billion franchise.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: There's a difference between Lord Voldemort and my user name Voldemort. Which is similar to Donald Duck (most famous for his semi-intelligible speech) and Donald Trump (famous for his verrrry large brain) -- Voldemort (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • FotWer here. Voldemort, stop trying to claim ownership over Marc Pasquin’s work, m’kay? I was there when this image was first contributed to FotW-ml, and when it was posted to FotW-ws (that “unimportant site”, LOL), and I was there when the original image was improved to its current version (which we should synch, btw). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Anyone harbouring any lingering doubt concerning the untruthfulness of Voldemort’s claim of authorship should ask why is this image 217 px high? It had been the standard in the Flags of the World mailinglist and website since about 1997, and in wide use thereon even before, changed shortly later to 216px high. Why would an independetly created image use this same unusual number of pixels?… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Thanks for your help! I fixed the description of the file per OTRS permission. Bencemac (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I will also send an OTRS by the day after tomorrow. Do not archive it till then. -- Voldemort (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Guy, be aware that OTRS means you will have to disclose your real life name, which will be thus linked to your fraudulent authorship statement. Maybe you don’t wanna do that. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey Volde, better you accept your lies, I can prove that you're lying. But I think you should be given a chance to plead guilty. And Tuválkin is right that you need to disclose your real life identity for OTRS assistance. Regards, Eatcha (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Tuválkin, this link proves that volde is evil. Volde, What you have to say about this link ?? The date is January 17 2006. Bencemac this case is closed per this link, we don't need to wait for volde's OTRS. Regards, -- Eatcha (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that link, Eatcha. I do have the original image in my e-mail inbox since 2004, along with Marc Pasquin’s message about it to the FotW-ml and the discussion that followed prior to it being edited into the FotW-ws. Valdemort is just insisting because he thinks this is all so fun, risking wasted OTRS volonteer time: Classic trolling. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Tuvalkin: I thought that Voldemort being blocked would make you happy, or I don't understand what's the issue. The post I removed is IMO legal threat and an attack. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I blocked Voldemort for legal threat, attacks, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

 Question Am I the only one who find that strange Voldemort redirected their talk page to User:Voldemore, an indefinitely blocked account? Possible sock puppet? Bencemac (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It was not Voldemort who redirected the page. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Right, it was sock en:User:Voldemore, 12 years ago.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right. My bad. Bencemac (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the escalated situation. Bencemac (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Voldemort is now globally locked, so the issue is closed. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

European Parliament

With regard to multimedia files from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en , could you please share your thoughts on European Parliament copyright, so that a guideline can be reached and added to COM:CRT/EU?

The copyright notice on its website is http://www.europarl.europa.eu/portal/en/legal-notice .

Here is the most important passage: 

As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words '© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament' or '© European Union, [year(s)] – EP' ) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged. However, the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it

Any partial reproduction of data or multimedia items from this website must also cite the URL link of the complete item or the web page from which it was sourced.

Prior discussions concluded that their permission is equivalent to no-derivative: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:EuroparlTag (more from search results).

Extra question: how long does European Parliament copyright last? 70 years after publication, 70 years after death of authors or something else?--Roy17 (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Related problems: if the conclusion is that europarl files are not acceptable to Commons, then special:search/insource:110900366 needs to be cleaned up and https://www.flickr.com/people/110900366@N07 should be blacklisted. Euranet has published many europarl photos under free licences.--Roy17 (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
If the files are published under a free license on Flickr, I don't see the issue. The account is genuine, and they can decide to publish some images under a free license, while they are also under the original license. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Europarl has its own flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/european_parliament , which does share free photos, but in those photos' EXIF the Copyright is something like CC-BY-4.0: © European Union 2019 – Source: EP. Euranet has no authority to license europarl photos, and their photos have taglines like © European Union 2019 - Source : EP. The deliberate free licence is missing. So I think Euranet takes photos from europarl's photobank and publishes them using wrong licences.--Roy17 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Suffering Genius-To Gerry Mulligan.jpg

Hi, Do we have enough evidence about the lack of copyright on this work of art? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

We don't know when in 1989 it was, so we don't know if no notice even applied; we don't know that it was for sale, as opposed to just on display, and we don't know that there's not a copyright notice on the back. I'd say we're far from enough evidence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, so Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suffering Genius-To Gerry Mulligan.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Copypatrol for images

Hey All. A few of us are working on a automated image copyright concern detection tool for Commons. Google now has an API we can use. Volume however is not unlimited. Plan was just to run images that are missing EXIF data. Also hoping it can help pick up images that are being Flicker washed. Is this being discussed anywhere else / currently being worked on by anyone else? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Estimate is that about 40% of images do not have EXIF data. Will also look at limiting the tool to users with less than 50 uploads. Other thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
These are good criteria. These could refine after some testing. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
What is the number of uploads here in a month? After applying these criteria how many images do people think will be left to go through automated review?
We will need an output page that will list the files of concerns and the matches to the file in question to be checked by a human. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: In addition to checking files without EXIF:
  1. Check if the uploader is autopatrolled and skip it entirely if true. (should help with performance)
  2. Wait for some time after the upload and check if it's in use anywhere. If it is, scan it.
  3. Scan everything that comes in through cross-wiki uploads. Over half of it tends to be trash.
  4. Always scan files from Facebook.
  5. If the file is more than 3 months old according to EXIF data and claimed as {{Own}}, scan it.
  6. If the file has EXIF data but is less than 1MB, scan it.
  7. If the file is a PNG and over 500KB 0.5 bytes per pixel, scan it.
  8. Search the wikitext for "actor", "actress", "singer", "celebrity" and maybe some related terms (sportspeople?) and scan if found.
  9. Skip uploades tagged with CropTool [1.4]. (thanks Roy17)
  10. Skip everything that's tagged with {{Licensereview}}.
  11. Skip everything that's tagged with {{PermissionOTRS}}.
  12. Skip everything that's tagged with {{PD-textlogo}}. Google will find those, but that means nothing.
  13. Skip everything that's tagged with {{PD-old}} (and variants) or {{PD-US-expired}}. It doesn't really matter if those are found elsewhere.
Does that help? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Alexis Jazz perfect thanks.
By this "Over half of it tends to be trash." do you mean they are copyright violations? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz: "Always scan files from Facebook" - this make me think that maybe we don't even need Google to get to the source when user correctly points to it. How do we know if a photo in Facebook is copyvio? (automatic rules). Are there major sites for which we do know whether a file is good or not? (I think flicker have good annotation for copyrights; with FlickreviewR 2 already handling it). Thanks, Eran (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: Crosswiki uploads: click the link, see for yourself. Copyvio, Crap, copyvio, no source, selfie by non-contributor, no source, possible copyvio. (but only 316KB, so maybe 500KB is too high) One more: search the wikitext for "actor", "actress", "singer", "celebrity" and maybe some related terms and scan if found. Facebook: FBMD. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding to Alexis Jazz's:
  1. Skip uploades tagged with CropTool [1.4] always.
  2. I dont think criterion #5 is good. It's quite common to find people, amateurs or professionals, who discover this website and decide to dig up photos from their hard disks and share.--Roy17 (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: yes, that happens.. sometimes. But when people upload pictures they found on the internet, those pictures are often more than 3 months old. You'd have to put it to the test to see how many false positives such a filter results in. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes likely we will want a modular structure to this tool. And than we can see how well each module performs.
We will need to see how many API accesses we can get and than determine how wide we want to cast the net. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Btw, on the other side of this suggested feature, Google will find lots of matches in those websites that clone wikipedia. wikiwand, revolvy... This match is not useful because Commons is the source of them, not the other way around. So Alexis Jazz's point #2 would be tricky to implement. If you wait too long, google feedbacks have to be filtered.--Roy17 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
You'd only have to wait 5-10 minutes. If someone uploads an image to add it to an article, they'll often do so quickly. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Tool needs to run basically at the time the image is added to Commons. It will not help back in time because yes our content will than mirror around the internet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@Doc James: Very true, but that doesn't happen in 5-10 minutes. Scanning a file directly is fine, but if a file is initially skipped because it doesn't match any other criteria, it should get scanned if it becomes used in mainspace somewhere soon after upload. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully these will be scanned at the initial upload. Going back and scanning latter will likely result in too many false positives. We can test this eventually of course. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to explain what this tool can actually achieve and how reliably it achieves it. It is possible that it turns up far more false positives or false negatives than helpful. I looked at the page today and it highlighted a concern with en:Religion in Spain and Religion in Spain. It is verbatim identical, including the pictures. Yet the wiki article is the product of a collaborative editing project involving hundreds of editors making a thousand edits to produce a 6000-word encyclopaedic article. The Copypatrol tool was concerned with this diff where 100% of 92 words were identical. But the Howling Pixel is just a Wikipedia-scraper that acknowledges and attributes as much, and is presumably kept bang up-to-date with all edits made. It is already known at en:Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/GHI#Howling Pixel so should have been excluded. This is an example of where the tool has wasted Admin time rather than helped.
Commons images aren't created by diffs. Although some are derivatives of others, that represents a tiny portion of our content. A large proportion of our content is scraped from elsewhere and unlike Wikipedia, we do not paraphrase when uploading. So there is a very real difficulty in identifying who has copied who. The links we have that indicate claimed source will often rot and thus appear dubious with age. Images that get added to Wikipedia articles are nearly guaranteed to be reused elsewhere, not least on Wikipedia scraper sites.
There is a suggestion that images with a source from Facebook be examined by the tool. The example given File:Eschatos Devilstone 2015.jpg looks like a probably copyvio (professional band photo) but a match by Google to that page and others would not actually add any extra information we don't already know. As noted, we already have lots of clues to help make us suspicious, whereas on Wikipedia there may be far fewer clues. Many people can write a decent few sentences on a topic, but very very very few people can take professional photos of rock bands at a concert. It hasn't helped us to know this image exists elsewhere in this case.
I suggest admins consider cases where images have been deleted for copyvio where a genuine original appeared elsewhere online, different to the the indicated source (if any) and prior to the Commons upload. Further, there may be some sites, such as stock photo agencies, or newspaper websites, where the quantity of freely licenced images is close to 0% and so would be much more likely to indicate theft of professional material. Our eyes can quickly judge if a photo is likely to be professionally taken, which I don't think Google can help yet with. Also we have an issue of copyvio where someone takes a photo with their own camera (or smartphone) and the subject is copyright. How could Google help with that? It won't understand de minimis or Freedom of Panorama. -- Colin (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Colin:
  • CopyPatrol blacklist is in m:User:EranBot/Copyright/Blacklist. (we don't want to be enwiki specific ). CopyPatrol is different tool as it intend for text, and if we decide to implement something similar for files it will likely implemented from scratch. Anyway, your argument is correct - it is important to get high enough confidence with the tool, otherwise it will waste time for admins and people won't use it.
  • One lesson learned from CopyPatrol that we would like to apply here as well is to limit it to new files only. As you said, it is hard to know who copied from who for old content.
  • File:Eschatos Devilstone 2015.jpg - I agree Google search wouldn't give us added value. Can you please elaborate about "lots of clues to help make us suspicious"? (I wonder if we can translate these clues to algorithm - one of them you mentioned as professional photos)
  • Photo agencies and newspaper websites - this is good point. Do we have a black/grey list of such sites? Maybe we should just assign copyvio probability to each domain (#deleted files from domain/#files from domain) so news agency will have say 95% copyvio, facebook 60% and flickr 20% etc.
Thank you for the good comments, Eran (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Eran I don't know about blacklists (though I think there are blacklists of Flickr streams known to be full of copyvio). The problem isn't that someone steals an image from Shutterstock, or from the front page of The Guardian and tells us by including that link in the "source" field. That would be dumb and no need for fancy technology to spot those. I was thinking more of images without source, that claim "own work", but where a Google Image search produces a match on a professional site where one has an expectation that the images are supplied by professionals and are very much not free. With few exceptions, images produced for stock photo agencies, and by news agencies (current affairs, sports, etc), will not and will never be free. So I think a list of sites that contain mostly non-free images would be useful for your tool to identify possible copyvio. On the other hand, original-content photos on some other sites will nearly always be free (Nasa, US Gov, etc -- other folk will have lists of these because we scrape them regularly). So an image from Nasa that appears on both Commons and newspapers would be just fine.
Generally speaking, professional photographers do not contribute their photos to Commons. While there are a good bunch of enthusiastic amateurs on Commons, their output tends to fit into certain fairly uncommercial categories: flowers, insects, churches, landscapes, etc. While we do get some high quality photos of famous people donated by their agent or taken by Commoners, those are rare. As are images of sporting events or venues like the rock concert. Even on subjects such as landscapes, our own photographers tend towards realistic photography, whereas commercial photographers will tend to process the images towards unrealistic. So it is possible to visually look at a photo and say "This was done by a professional, producing a commercially attractive work". Combine that with clues such as no link to a source, or a newbie account, and we'd be suspicious. Basically, the world of commercial photography concerns itself with photos of people (famous people or attractive models posing) and the world of Commons free images very much does not, statistically speaking.
Other clues about commercial work being stolen are that the image may be simply a thumbnail rather than a full size 24MP photo, and may have had its EXIF data removed. As noted above, sometimes people just do a screengrab and save as PNG. Alternatively, the image might actually retain EXIF tags that give a clue the image is copyright by a named photographer who might be someone different to the uploader.
Is it a plan for your tool to try to examine the image, EXIF, and file description page looking for clues about possible copyvio. Or is it just going to do a Google image search to locate a source? Or both? Would it help if Admins could note that a user's photos look suspicious, and add them to a list for the tool to investigate and return data? I don't know if we already have tools to examine our file pages, and categorise images, or whether the "no source" and similar categories are all added by hand. -- Colin (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Just a couple notes:
  • When adding notification about file found elsewhere it is important to say if it's there before it was uploaded to Commons or afterward. these files might be qualify to template {{Published}} in the files talk page.
  • If we can have option of searching photos in Facebook it will be great. -- Geagea (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes the plan would be to only list images for which there is likely an image published elsewhere before it was uploaded to common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Well if you want to add info about existing files in the net a moment after the file uploaded it is a good idea. Don't think that we need any limitation. It can be added to other versions section. They are not necessarily problem tags, it can be information tag. But it can help to human reviewer to be sure which file uploaded first. In that case Copypatrol should add also notification if the tool did not find any file. -- Geagea (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Possibly under COM:TOO Germany

Hi, is zh:File:Lufthansa CityLine Logo.svg and en:File:Lufthansa CityLine logo.svg below COM:TOO Germany? Or should they be uploaded to commons as {{PD-textlogo}} & {{Trademarked}} like the old version of the logo. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards no. The Twitter bird logo has a similar complexity and has been consistently deleted from Commons. I also believe the threshold of originality in Germany is lower than in the United States. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

File:港人燭光遊行至中聯辦悼念劉曉波 04.jpg

I would like some opinions of the licensing of this image. The photographer might have been working for Voice of America, but I'm wondering if the banner imagery shown in the photograph can be assumed to be completely free of copyright or whether that would make the photo a COM:DW. Neither the photo of en:Liu Xiaobo shown on the banner nor the on the cards the marchers are holding were the original work of the photographer; they was just part of the scene he/she was filming. Someone has used the photo to make the cropped version File:Liu Xiaobo.jpg which just shows Liu. If the Commons files can be kept as licensed then there's really no need to keep the local non-free file en:File:Liu Xiaobo.jpg for use on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The cropped-out is not OK.--Roy17 (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Even the whole photo File:港人燭光遊行至中聯辦悼念劉曉波 04.jpg itself is not OK either. Per COM:DM, the copyrighted work (portrait of Liu) is a key part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo), and removing it would make the derivative work radically different. --Wcam (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Roy17 and Wcam for the input. The cropped version has been deleted. As for the whole photo, I agree that it's likely a derivative work. The question then is whether the file can be tagged with {{Dw no source since}} or should it be COM:DR'd instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
It is de minimis. If someone doesnt like it, Liu Xiaobo's photo could be blurred. If someone still insists, Liu Xia's could be blurred too.--Roy17 (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Two different people uploading the same logo under CC BY-SA 4.0

I've started a discussion more than 2 weeks ago tagging both people, but still haven't gotten a response, so turning to you guys. I suspect that none of them may actually own the copyrights to the logo they uploaded, plus I'm pretty sure Commons is not place for uploading logos anyway. –Turaids (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Likely just copyright violations of images copied from the many variations published by the organization, for example on their official facebook account. The context of the uploads to Commons typically suggests copyvios. Small images, dated from the date of upload, no real name. Can be speedy deleted. If the actual copyright owner was to upload the work, evidence of identity and license would be required anyway. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Both files deleted. Yann (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Roy17 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No free licence claim

File:Gen. bryg. Krzysztof Radomski.jpg is claimed to be under CC0 licence, however despite the lack of All Rights Reserved sign on the source page, I can't spot any free licence nor PD statement either. Have I omitted something? ~Cybularny Speak? 13:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cybularny: I tagged it accordingly.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Book (covers) created in the GDR copyrighted?

I obtain some books released in the former GDR and I want to ask if it is possible (and allowed) to publish parts of the(or the whole) book under a Creative Commons license?

Ich besitze einige Bücher aus der ehemaligen DDR und wollte fragen, ob es erlaubt ist, Teile dieser Bücher (oder theoretisch das ganze Werk/Buch) unter einer Creative Commons-Lizenz zu veröffentlichen.

Grüße/Regards, PantheraLeo1359531 --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Normal German copyright applies. That is, if it is above the threshold of originality and if the creator died less than 70 years ago, it is copyrighted and a Creative Commons license would need permission of the copyright owner (might be the heirs), preferrably via COM:OTRS. A simple title page containing nothing but author, title, publisher information might be {{PD-text}}, but any cover image - and, of course, the text of the book itself - is very likely copyrighted. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Stumped

I need help here - i.e. an explanation of what I am expected to do. OK, it's been 10 years or so, but I'm still willing to learn. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Two things: First you are using a permission template in some cases for files from authors that are not mentioned in the ticket. Second some of the files do not have a license template. Jcb (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's let administrators chime in here while our tempers are still under control. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Bad Flickr author

Hello! I recently uploaded File:Kräcker.jpg for seed cracker (Q65548218) but the author is listed at Commons:Questionable Flickr images. The file also can be found under free license at the author's website. Can we keep it? Thanks for the answer and I apologise if I did something wrong. Best regards, Bencemac (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bencemac: Am I still not allowed to say Marco Verch is a bastard? Well, you can see where I'm coming from. It's not an unreasonable thought, even if I'm not allowed to say it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Alexis Jazz, I did not know about that. I found the picture via Google's free imagine option. Bencemac (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Roy17 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Joggling deletion

File:Hungary ajka toxicspill october9 2010 dg.jpg and File:Chile mine oct13 2010 dg.jpg should have the same fate. (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hungary ajka toxicspill october9 2010 dg.jpg)

Tagging involved users @Digitalglobe, Lamiot, Jeff G., Elcobbola, Yann, and Gbawden: .--Roy17 (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't understand why this file was deleted. It has a validated permission, so there is no reason for deletion, let alone speedy deletion without any warning. See also Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2019-07#File:Chile_mine_oct13_2010_dg.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The OTRS ticket we have says "I work at Digitalglobe" which is not the same as "I am a director/officer/agent authorised to license IP on behalf of Digitalglobe". We require the latter--the ticket does not address copyright issues at all - . It's worrisome Jeff G., an OTRS volunteer, does not know this, and even more so that he refiled a request when the first was closed as not done for that reason. w:WP:OTHERPARENT? Эlcobbola talk 12:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Эlcobbola: The title "Corporate Imagery Manager" isn't good enough for you?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not. Indeed, COM:OTRS says, under "I am an employee of the copyright owner", "Please send us a clear statement from an email address that shows that you act for the copyright holder, stating that you are authorised by your employer to release the work, under a specific free license." I'm not making any truth claims; perhaps the sender does indeed have authority, but that authority would not come by virtue of title (manager, even of "corporate imagery" is not a director or officer position) and neither you nor I know as they made no assertion whatsoever regarding copyright authorisation--which they must. This is a role account ticket, not a copyright permission ticket. Эlcobbola talk 13:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The client also says "I do represent DigitalGlobe". This is OK IMHO. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Эlcobbola: "Please send us a clear statement from an email address that shows that you act for the copyright holder, stating that you are authorised by your employer to release the work, under a specific free license." has only been there since this edit 12:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC) by @Andy Mabbett. The previous language "Please send us a clear statement from an email address that shows that you act for the copyright holder and that you are empowered to release the work, with their permission, under a specific free license." was modified by me (insertion of "and") in the previous edit and added by the same user in the second previous edit, both 7-8 December 2018. Do you want to reconfirm this 8+ year old ticket ex post facto with modern requirements?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The ticket did not address copyright when it was sent in 2010. It was not a permission ticket then; it is not a permission ticket now. This is not a "reconfirmation" or an attempt to apply requirements retroactively--I'm not the one trying to restore an image in 2019 using as a basis an antiquated ticket not appropriate for that purpose. Эlcobbola talk 14:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Эlcobbola: I requested actual permission.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Are you suggesting that I changed the meaning of the text, rather than simply clarifying the wording? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Mabbett No.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a role account ticket... What role is that? Judging from the account's 3 edits in total, it's here to upload those two photos. (Please undelete the 1 remaining edit, which I believe is a former revision of User:Digitalglobe.)
The version of COM:OTRS this account saw was special:permalink/45391213.--Roy17 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the former version of the user page was deleted as spam. I don't think we need that anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Can a map from a Peruvian government report be used on Wikipedia?

I understand that most publications of the U.S. government are public domain. How about reports of other governments? In this particular case, I would like to put a map of a national park in Peru on wikipedia. The source of the map is an official report of the Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture. The report is posted on the internet. There is no indication in the report than it is copyrighted, nor any language in the report that indicates any restrictions on the use of the material. So, can I post the map on the relevant pages of the English wikipedia? Smallchief (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Smallchief: I'm afraid not, please see COM:PERU#Excluded from protection.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Note that "official texts of legislative, administrative or judicial character" might mean that you have some hope if the map is attached/embedded to some law (such as a law establishing the national park). Nemo 14:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Photos of old paintings?

I want to upload some of the images of artwork from https://www.rastko.rs/rastko-bl/umetnost/likovne/srakic-ikone/srakic-ikone_bih_e.html. The original paintings are old, so public domain. But, these are modern photographs of the paintings. What's the copyright status here? RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

If it is just the painting, no frames, no room around the photo, etc. Just the painting and nothing else then {{PD-Art}} along with whatever PD template goes along with that particular piece (see template documentation). Other instances might be more complex so I would need to know exactly which one you are talking about. --Majora (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. The two in particular I'm interested in are:
both of which seem to fit your description. Hypothetical question; what if the photos had included frames? Would I be good to download the images, crop out the frames, and then upload the cropped images to commons? RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see the policy. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
To put the link provided by Asclepias into, perhaps, more helpful words, RoySmith you have made the correct assumption. The problem with frames is that they are often much newer then the work inside of them and due to the complexity inherent in most frames they would carry their own copyright. So if a PD work of art is inside a non-PD frame that would be a problem. The removal of the frame solves that and since the artwork is still PD-Art then you would still be fine upload just that. --Majora (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Photograph of/by Postal workers

The following image [13], taken in 1937, is posted on the Smithsonian National Postal Museum site [14]. Description is "Gold trains at Fort Knox, Kentucky are preparing to unload bullion from the train cars into the trucks. The soldier kneeling at the rear of the truck at left is adjusting the brace. Courtesy United States Postal Service" I believe this image would be free from copyright per 17 USC § 105 since it is a work of the United States Government. Am I safe in assuming it is?--Work permit (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I think so. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.--Work permit (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not so clear cut, and extreme caution is urged: the U.S. Postal Service is currently a "quasi-federal" independent agency within the Federal government that does not operate on tax dollars. The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics apparently doesn't consider postal workers federal employees. [15][16]. But the USPS falls with the Executive branch, and is a Government agency. [17]. Whatever the legal status of current works made by postal workers, works made prior to the 1971 Postal Reorganization Act may have different criteria. Until more conclusive statements or case studies specifically regarding copyright eligibility for postal workers are found, the precautionary assumption should be that the works are not in the public domain (although they may be for other reasons, such as publication without notice or prior to 1923). Lastly, media labelled "Courtesy United States Postal Service" doesn't necessarily mean "created by an employee of the United States Postal Service". It may have simply been provided by the USPS from an archive of memorabilia. --Animalparty (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

File:תמונה משנת 2006.jpg

I nominated the above file for deletion as in the source i find the license says Public Domain Mark 1.0. but checking files from the same site, some of them have {{Attribution-FLGov-PhotoColl}}. Does this file qulify under this license? does all the files from the source can be under same license? -- Geagea (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I doubt that anything produced in 1974 can be in public domain unless released by the author. Ruslik (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States is pretty clear; many works produced in 1974 in the US are in the public domain. This one is probably too hard to say, unless there's a good clear original source.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, only if published without a notice. Ruslik (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Geagea: I think that all files from that site qualify for that template, and that state law overrides that site's errant choice of PDM.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I have a photograph I believe is free from copyright per 17 USC § 105 since it is a work of the United States Government. Specifically, it is a photograph from 1941 of "Archibald MacLeish and Assistant Librarian Verner Clapp, with help from a guard, sealing and securing the original signed and engrossed Declaration of Independence in preparation for its relocation to a safe and secret location to protect it from a feared enemy attack on Washington, D.C.". The photograph is attributed to the Libarary of Congress, and was published in the book "American Treasures" by Stephen Puleo. The book, of course, is copyrighted. Am I allowed to scan the photograph in the book and post it?

FYI, the Library of Congress does not have it available on it's website. There happens to be a (bad) version of the image available on the history channel [18]. Work permit (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it this photo? FWIW, Getty attributes it to George Skadding for Life magazine [19]. Also, they date it from 1944, which is when the Declaration returned to the Library, not 1941 when it departed. That could be a good thing because Life issues in the year 1944 are in the public domain (copyright not renewed). However, in a summary search, I didn't find this photo published in the Life issues of early October 1944. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is the photograph! Strange that the book would give a different date, and attribute to the Library of Congress. Looks like I have more research ahead of me.
Would you happen to know, in principle, if a PD image is published in a copyright protected book, is a copying the image from the book a copyright violation? --Work permit (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
If the original image is PD and it is reproduced without creative modification in the book, it remains PD and you can reproduce it. If the version in the book was modified in a creative way, the modified version acquired a distinct copyright and you can't reproduce it. To determine if the original Life image is PD in the first place, we must know if it was published at the right time. If you find it published in one of the issues listed there, it's good. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, that is very useful. So, HAD the photo been really from the LOC I would have been good to go. But now that it is apparently from LIFE magazine, I need to do research. The google host for LIFE images claims 97% of the images on their site have never been published. So, if the the image was never published, then am I out of luck? --Work permit (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Found it! Life, October 16, 1944, page 44. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
THANK YOU!!!!--Work permit (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
There may be one other detail to check. I seem to vaguely remember a similar discussion where someone asked if we could freely reproduce a larger version with a better resolution than originally published in the magazine, or if we were limited to the same small version exactly as published in the magazine. I don't know. -- Asclepias (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't find any discussion specifically regarding Life Magazine. Looking in general for discussions on "expired" and "resolution" didn't pop up anything either. But I certainly understand how it could be an issue. If no one else responds to this thread I'll start a new one. Worse come to worse, I can upload the low res photo from the magazine scan.Work permit (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
There's been a lot of discussion about people who want to license a low-res version and charge for the high-res version, and whether a CC license covers both at the same time. If they're low res and high res versions of the exact same work, I think they fall under the same copyright. If there's cropping going on, I'm not sure if the copyright in the full original would have been extinguished by the cropped version going into the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is the low res copy from the magazine which I've just uploaed [20], and the high res [21]. The low res has been cropped. The high res has a LIFE logo on it. I could crop the high res photo, which would eliminate the logo and be true to the original print. But I'm not at all sure that is legit. --Work permit (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks like this may be an image from Life magazine, taken in 1944 on the documents return from the fort. Here is a google Archibald MacLeish (C) unscrewing the documents from the case.. So now the question is can this image be posted to wikimedia? The photo may never have been published. --Work permit (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

It states that 

The term for which copyright shall subsist in photographs shall be fifty years from the making of the original negative from which the photograph was directly or indirectly derived, and the person who was owner of such negative at the time when such negative was made shall be deemed to be the author of the work, and, where such owner is a body corporate, the body corporate shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to reside within the parts of His Majesty's dominions to which this Act extends if it has established a place of business within such parts.

The Design and Artists Copyright Society explains that, according to this provision, photos produced between 1 July 1912 and 31 December 1945 would be PD in UK so long as the photographer was not a national of other EEA state and the photographes had not been published in a EEA state before entering into PD (because Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 would revive copyright for works still protected on 1 January 1996).

What do you think? If the community sees fit, please amend COM:CRT/United Kingdom.

Copyright Act 1911 also has far reaching effect than just the UK. For example, COM:CRT/Israel says something similar for photographs before 2007. en:Copyright_law_of_Hong_Kong#Copyright_Ordinance, and Hong Kong too.

This issue was brought to light by User:Hrishikes: special:permalink/358762557#File:Krishna_Govinda_Gupta.png.--Roy17 (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Comment -- Also under discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Images_by_Walter_Stoneman -- Hrishikes (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

 Support I propose that we amend COM:CRT/United Kingdom with the above information.
Then should we create a new template, and change (and eventually renamed) {{PD-UK-unknown}}? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose I do not see the claimed exception at the DACS link. Their summary seems correct to me. Photos expired 50 years after creation under the 1911 Act. The 1956 act (effective June 1957) changed to 50 years from publication, except existing photographs continued to be based on year of creation. The 1988 act (effective 1989) changed to 50pma but again did not change the term for existing photographs. It was the application of the EU directive, effective Jan 1 1996, which restored basically everything to 70pma. If a work was protected in *any* EEA state as of July 1995, it got restored to 70pma in the UK. Germany and others were already 70pma, and Spain was effectively 80pma. I don't think we have identified any work which was less than 70pma but was not protected in at least one EEA country, meaning effectively everything got restored. Carl Lindberg (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Asclepias: DACS says copyright for those could be revived, not would. DACS doesnt say what exact criteria lead to restoration. A deduction of why someone's photographs would be protected in another country would be either the person was a citizen of that or the photo was published there. If these were true, it could; otherwise it could not. This issue involves a great deal of photographs (a window of 33 years, and maybe longer in other countries). However, most COM:CRT guidelines are not aware of this special provision. At least I didnt know about old photos from HK could fall under this.--Roy17 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Protection of the work in any EEA country as of July 1, 1995 would lead to restoration, per the law. The DACS explicit example is of a 1930 photo from a UK author who died in 1940, being restored because it was still protected in Germany (among others) in 1995, such that its copyright was restored and valid until 2011. That page states what the law does... I see no discussion of your interpretation at all. You would have to show (for each EEA country) why each one would not protect a British work, given that all of them were Berne Convention members, who would protect works from other Berne Convention countries. The only hope I see is if a country uses the rule of the shorter term, which was optional under Berne -- but if just one EEA country did not (and I don't *think* Germany did before 1995), then it was still protected in that country under that country's terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Are photos in wanted posters in China eligible for {{PD-PRC-exempt}}?

Are photos of suspects in s:zh:公缉【1999】0102号(Source:http://www.people.com.cn/GB/channel1/10/20000706/132344.html) and s:zh:北京市公安局搜捕“高自联”在逃分子通缉令 allowed to be uploaded here? --神樂坂秀吉 (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Photos from wanted posters do not fall into any of the three categories mentioned in {{PD-PRC-exempt}}. So, the answer is no. Ruslik (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I consider any attachments part of the documents, but as you can see some users diagree with that.--Roy17 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Author after watermark

Can anybody identify the watermark on the right side of this photo? The photo was taken in circa 1920. --Regasterios (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Some more context would really be helpful. This shows István Pártos, Hungarian violinist Wunderkind, died in Amsterdam in 1920. You're looking for a Dutch photography shop "Atelier Groen..." active 1918-1920, probably in Amsterdam. Lupo 19:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know who is on the photo. I would like to know if it is PD. --Regasterios (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Derivative work of image with "No known restrictions on publication"

I've uploaded an image from the Library of Congress. The rights advisory indicates "No known restrictions on publication". The upload can be seen here [22]. Reading policies and seeing examples, I assume it was ok to upload this image. I would like to upload a retouched version of it. Am I allowed to create such a "derivative" work and post it? I briefly looked for examples of derivative works whose source indicates "no known restrictions" but couldn't find any. --Work permit (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Eric Longden's work

I just came across Eric Longden and googled his name. He has described himself in his LinkedIn account as a "professional filmmaker from Los Angeles, CA". In his Viemo account, among other things, he has uploaded an Adidas AD with CC BY 3.0 license. I'm just skeptical if he has the authority to issue the license of this Ad clip. Any thoughts? --Mhhossein talk 08:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

We can't tell the contractual arrangements between the filmmaker and the client unless we see the contract or unless we ask one of them, or both. You could assume good faith and that the author did not transfer the copyright. Or you could assume that he made a mistake. Perhaps you can contact him and obtain details. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
See Commons:Assume good faith#Good faith and copyright. I don't think assuming he made a mistake would be correct. --Mhhossein talk 15:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Hm... I'm not sure I understand what you are implying. You say you are "skeptical if he has the authority to issue the license" but you "don't think assuming he made a mistake would be correct". So, what is it you're concluding? -- Asclepias (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Who made a mistake did you mean? Uploader or the author? --Mhhossein talk 11:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Eric Longden. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
N.B.: In your original comment, you did not specify why you were skeptical. Can you be more specific? In my reply, I guessed you were implying that the filmmaker should have transferred his copyright to his client. But maybe you were implying instead some other untold reason, such as other persons, other than the filmmaker and the client, also have shared copyrights to the work, which were not cleared by the filmmaker. I can't view the video from Vimeo for technical reasons. Anyway, we could speculate on Commons about the various possibilities of what the parties agreed between themselves in their contracts and who cleared or did not clear what copyright to the benefit of who, but IMO the best solution is still to ask the question to the filmmaker directly and tactfully. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The work seems to be ordered by Adidas and you're first guess is showing why I was skeptical of the work. --Mhhossein talk 13:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
This is another link to the video. --Mhhossein talk 14:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Landsat 8 images

Can they be used here? Is their copyright ok? Miraceti (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

According to this all Landsat images are in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Images taken at Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique events

as per Carl's and my comments below. Yann (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The accreditation terms of FIG (Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique) are available here. In part, the terms that are agreed to read:

I agree that all photos and moving images taken by me at the event shall be used solely for personal and non-commercial purposes unless prior written consent is obtained from the FIG.

It would seem obvious to me that images taken at FIG events are therefore compatible with our terms, specifically that files "must be freely licensed or public domain". Images uploaded by DerHexer from 1st FIG Artistic Gymnastics Junior World Championships 2019 display a template that states "This template was created during the 1st FIG Artistic Gymnastics Junior World Championships 2019 thanks to an accreditation of the International Gymnastics Federation". If DerHexer was accredited then he agreed to the terms of the accreditation that any images he took would be "used solely for personal and non-commercial purposes" and therefore incompatible our terms.

In an earlier discussion regarding Olympic Games accreditation, some editors expressed the view this was a contractual issue between the individual photographers and the IOC. Any legal actions would be against DeHexer, not the WMF. This is a similar case, but perhaps worth discussing to see if opinions have changed. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

There was a recent decision on these topics here: Commons:Deletion requests/User:Stepro/UEFA. Apparently, opinions haven't changed, so snowball close, thanks. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 07:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That deletion request was about a specific template which included usage terms that were incompatible with Commons. The template was kept after those usage terms were removed. The discussion about the Olympics accreditation was muddled by claims that the IOC gave a special accreditation to you and other photographers. The agreementt was never produced. This is a more clearer case with only one photographer and no claims of "special arrangements". World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Your manhunt on other contributors is unbeleavable. No wonder, that Wikimedia projects lose so much editors, when they are cursed like this. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
A discussion about licensing isn't a "manhunt" or a "curse". It's just a discussion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
"It's just a discussion" is a cop-out. Harassment is often a series of "just discussions". I wouldn't call this harassment yet, but when you reopen a discussion admitting that a conclusion had been reached and say "perhaps worth discussing to see if opinions have changed", it should be obvious why this is annoying to other users. I don't see any reason to keep this discussion open.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I am not reopening a discussion. This is a different organization and a different accreditation. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Commons should not be getting involved in interpreting agreements between third parties. Only they know what the agreement is. If User:DerHexer is violating his agreement with the FIG, it's up to the FIG to deal with it directly with that person. Nobody else is bound by that contract. If User:DerHexer requests deletion in order to avoid legal issues, I would respect it, but not deletion for any other reason (at least where that user owns the copyright) or on request by someone else. In general, many commercial companies get their photographers accredited, and sell the photos (like Associated Press), so a non-commercial copyright restriction makes no sense whatsoever. Unless, of course, the FIG is referring to only publicity rights, which means it's not a copyright issue at all. More likely, those are generic rules for people allowed access for a variety of reasons, and the agreement with media companies is probably a bit different. If you can convince User:DerHexer that you are correct, and he asks for deletion under those grounds, then cool. Otherwise, we will probably assume he knows more about the contractual situation than we do. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
There's no need to speculate. We know what DerHexer agreed to. I quoted some of the terms and linked to a PDF that you can read. This is not a personality rights issue, so please do not cloud the discussion with that assertion. I believe that we should not be hosting these images, based on COM:PRP. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I would assume that DerHexer is legally in the clear here, given his prior statement on IOC accreditation. A boilerplate template should not be used to automatically invoke PRP, just like we don't need to respect a public park's declaration on its website that photographs are for personal use only but make no attempt to restrict entry. We don't know what specific agreement DerHexer had with the FIG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
This is FIG not the IOC. This is a wholly separate agreement. Unlike a public park, this is a carefully controlled private event. Photographers (and other media) agree to the FIG terms in order to be there. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
If you have a document with DerHexer's signature on it with that wording, then sure that would matter. Or the actual, signed agreement for the organization which DerHexer was representing. Otherwise, no we don't know what his agreement was. The FIG can always make separate arrangements if they wish, and for a Wikimedia Germany representative that is more than likely, to the point it's extremely unlikely that anyone representing Wikimedia signed an agreement of the type you link. This is the same basic thing you brought up four months ago, not sure why you think it's worth having the same argument again. A boilerplate agreement is not proof that anyone actually signed it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Until DerHexer says he negotiaited a special agreement with the FIG, we should assume that he was subject to the same terms as all other media. When this was discussed in relation to the IOC, a similar suggestion about "special terms" was raised, which derailed discussion of the licensing status. I will happily drop this if DerHexer releases the agreement he signed. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
It would mostly likely have been Wikimedia Germany that signed any agreement, if one was. But basically no, we do not assume they signed an agreement like that, instead we Commons:assume good faith (particularly for Wikimedia Germany, who would know at least as much about the copyright as we do). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Again, please read the FIG document that I linked. Each accredited member carries a card with the terms on it. I have quoted part of that above. I am assuming that DerHexer was acting in good faith, but this does not mean that other editors can not question if the result is compatible with Commons' terms. It might be a more useful discussion if you did not keep coming up with reasons why the terms might not apply and allowed editors to discuss the issue of Commons holding images which are the photographer has agreed are not freely licensed. If DerHexer wants to comment on the terms of the FIG agreement, I am sure he is capable of doing that for himself. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I did read it. And it's up to the FIG if they actually required that, person by person. Basically, you are claiming that Wikimedia Germany knowingly set up a situation where they could not legally upload their works to Commons. I seriously doubt that is the case. Even if it was, it's up to the FIG to complain about it, and nobody else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Please do not put words in my mouth. I have not suggested that WMDE "knowingly set up a situation where they could not legally upload their works to Commons". Or suggested that they are involved in any way with DerHexer obtaining FIG accreditation. I don't think we should be accepting images where the photographer has agreed to terms that are incompatible with Commons rules. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough -- but the situation seems similar to the IOC. The template suggests that Wikimedia Germany was involved in the accreditation. Whether it was Wikimedia Germany or DerHexer who obtained it, I doubt they agreed to those terms. The FIG is not bound to use your link for everyone -- if someone has a different concern, and the FIG thinks it would help them too, then they would come to an agreement with different terms. The FIG can make any agreements it wants to. It sounds like that is exactly what happened with the IOC and I see no reason to assume it happened any differently here. You keep stating that you know that the wording you point to was part of the agreement, but you don't actually know that -- it's an assumption on your part, and probably faulty. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
And I have given DerHexer a chance to correct anything I may have asserted. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

As said, it's the very same procedure as with the IOC. And honestly, I do not hope that we need to repeat this discussion again and again. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@DerHexer: , sorry, but I don't know what "as said" refers to. Your only statement here was this which doesn't relate to the FIG accreditation at all. I don't want to keep having this discussion either, so perhaps you can clarify a few points and we can resolve it.
1. Did you have a FIG pass (similar to the ones shown in this FIG pdf)?
2. If you still have the pass, can you upload an image of the back so we can see how it differs from the standard ones?
3. Are you saying that a special agreement was negotiated with FIG?
4. If there was a special agreement, was it negotiated by you or by the WMF or by WMDE or by someone else?
5. If there was a special agreement, what was it?
I think there may be some language issues at work, so I hope the questions are clear. Thanks. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@World's Lamest Critic: At this point, your questions are not reasonable. All we need to know is that DerHexer published the images here under a free license. Anything else is not of our (and your) business. Carl Lindberg explained it much better than I would do. In brief, if the event organizer complains to DerHexer, it is the photographer's reponsibility, not ours. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think it is also our responsibility, per COM:SCOPE and COM:PRP. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
What you do here now is simply no longer a request or critic. This is now just harassment. DerHexer told very clear everything Commons need to know. What you do now is just a witch hunt to make your point. And it's for you obviously no longer of importance to be right or wrong. This is not the way we want to work here on Commons. So I request you to stop this now! -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
DerHexer has not clarified the terms under which th photographs were taken. If he had, I would not need to ask some simple questions which should allow us to figure out any licensing issues with the images. There is nothing tricky or insulting about the questions. I would really really like to get this settled and move on to other things, but just like the IOC discussion, it seems very difficult to get straight answers. Why is that? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
He took the photographs, he owns the copyright, and he has licensed them with a free license. That is the end of the licensing of the copyright. If he has a contractual issue with the FIG, that is his problem, and his risk to take, and is separate from copyright. Commons does not need to know any more. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review photos

I just uploaded two images that are not my property under Law 11.723, Article 34 as amended, and Berne Convention Article 7 (4)) of Argentina (Template:PD-AR-Photo) but I do not know if it's okay, because I do not have the publication number of the magazine's delivery and I'm not sure if the law is valid outside the country, so the picture was taken in South Africa but the magazine is from Argentina. Thank you. --Adriel 00 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please, provide links to the files that you talking about. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The last two that was uploaded: 1982 South African Grand Prix, Reutemann Prost podium.jpg and 1982 South African Grand Prix, mechanics in main straight.jpg. --Adriel 00 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
They are probably copyrighted in USA due to Commons:URAA. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Family pictures newer than 80 years old

Hi! I have private family pictures newer than 80 years old. Can I upload them to Commons under {{PD-heirs}}? They were taken and owned in Spain. What if they were taken and owned by a French family? Thank you Iñaki LL (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You can if you own the copyrights to the pictures (which is different than owning the pictures), or if you who know who took the photographs and they died more than 70 years ago. Otherwise, you may need to wait until they are 120 year old and use {{PD-old-assumed}}. Kaldari (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Kaldari for your prompt reply. I do not have further information, just pictures stuck on an album and loose collections of them. A few of them read the name of a studio on it, but most of them do not have anything printed on them. As a private, family collection, could I not just argue I am the heirs to them; in fact there is not anyone else claiming them and I am son and grandson of them. Iñaki LL (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Iñaki LL: The problem with {{PD-heirs}} is that it requires all heirs to release the rights. If you are the only legal heir, you can definitely use it, but otherwise you have to convince all the other heirs as well. Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Kaldari, it sounds a bit tortuous, so to say. Would it mean submitting an OTRS, say, a scanned page signed by all the family members/potential heirs involved? Iñaki LL (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The copyright of the pictures that have the name of the studio probably belongs to the studio or to photographer working at the studio, {{PD-heirs}} would not work for these. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Still pictures from FieldsportsChannel.tv videos

The "Picture and video syndication" page of FieldsportsChannel.tv says: "You are welcome to use still pictures from our productions. You can find free-use high res pictures to download here. Please credit: FieldsportsChannel.tv" When asked via email, if this statement means that still pictures from their videos are under the same CC-BY-2.0 license as the pictures on the linked flickr profile, FieldsportsChannel.tv confirmed this reading. Upload on commons Y/N? --Tilon3 (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tilon3: Please forward their reply with complete, unabridged, raw Internet headers via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
No, I don't share this kind of contact details. If that's any help to someone else, the person I contacted was Meredyth Grant (<email redacted>), cf. https://www.fieldsportschannel.tv/contact-us/ --Tilon3 (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tilon3: It is your responsibility to provide the information. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, maybe not. I think I made my stance clear. Regards, --Tilon3 (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Recently I was reading some articles in a website called the national interest. They use some photos from this project and they write in the attribution "from Wikimedia". Is that okay? Shouldn't they mention the uploader? I am just asking.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It depends on the individual image's license. Not all licenses require attribution. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

USGS EarthExplorer images?

I've seen a few images on Commons that are from EarthExplorer: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov

However, the notice says that the satellite images are from Google while the finer aerial images also mention copyrights by other companies, such as TerraMetrics, DigitalGlobe and Maxar Technologies. Yet there are also a few U.S. Government agencies being named as sources, such as NASA and the USDA Farm Agency.

So are these images considered copyrighted? Or does it depend on the area? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Ixfd64, the map itself is just the Google Maps API, so it would not be valid for Commons. The Data Sets available from the left-hand form come from a variety of sources, and any product acquired by U.S. government agencies would be acceptable here. Mind you that there are options for commercial and ISRO imagery as well, which may not be acceptable. Basically, images from that site need to be individually judged based on the dataset, rather than simply being from EarthExplorer. Are there any images in particular you are concerned about? — Huntster (t @ c) 00:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Here are a few images in question:
I can't really tell if these are Google images. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Ixfd64: Yep, a bit complicated. The high school images I was able to determine did come from Google Maps, which were sourced from Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources PAMAP division. I've got an email in to them to determine copyright status. As for the Sinjar image, it claims to be from Landsat 8, but I'm still trying to find the exact source. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Own work?

I'm not sure if the licensing on File:Logo of Dror-Habonim, Mișcarea Tineretului Sionist-Socialist, 1945.svg, File:Bloc of Democratic Parties sun (sky blue).svg, File:Jewish Democratic Committee logo.svg and File:Logo PNȚ Biblioteca de informație cetățenească 1933.svg is correct. It seems to me that "own work" would only be applicable the logos were truly the 100% original creations of the uploader, and not based upon someone else's work. It might be possible that some of the logos are COM:PD because of their age or complexity, but in that case the license probably should be changed to something else, right? If the original logos, however, are not PD or otherwise shown to have been released under a free license, then I think these would be considered COM:DW, which means the original copyright holder's permission would be needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Usually, this situation can be understood as meaning that the Commons contributors evaluated that the designs and the old paper drawings of the logos are in the public domain and the contributors are stating their authorship, copyright and licensing on their own work of vectorization. If you think that the contributors could make the situation clearer on the description pages, maybe you can contact them to suggest a wording you think could be better. A mention of the artists of the old drawings that were used would be a good thing, when they are known, for documentation and to respect the moral rights, where applicable. But I suppose that often they may not be identified in the available documents. Maybe you can ask on the Commons:Graphics village pump if there are some sort of generally accepted "good practices" that are recommended to contributors for this situation. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
As a side note, per this, the image that was used as the basis for all such work is in the public domain in Romania, as the authors are anonymous and it has been 70 years since publication, and also because the corporations who could've registered a copyright claim (though they probably never did) have been defunct for 50 years. If this needs further clarification as regards the image that served as an inspiration, I'd be happy to address it with more (and more specific tags), though allow me to comment that we're probably going into overkill mode. Dahn (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
To clarify further: not only do the original works have no know author, which would already make them copyright-free under the relevant law, but the PNȚ and Dror had been outlawed in 1947 and 1948, respectively; the Jewish Democratic Committee dissolved in 1953; the People's Democratic Front (whose logo definitely qualifies under the complexity issue, if this and this do) continued to 1965 or so, and since 1953 was an institution of the actual state (meaning that the PD tag for Romanian state emblems would also apply). Dahn (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yann: May I respectfully ask that you at least refrain from tagging the images for deletion when: (a) the discussion is ongoing and the one comment you got here was in favor of the images being labeled own work; (b) the implications here would affect thousands of files, including all vector logos used by interwar organizations in every country (not to mention present-day ones), uploaded here as own works by tens or hundreds of users; (c) all the images, aside from being own work of the uploader, and even if narrowly interpreted as non-original works, would still be un-copyrighted under the Romanian law, as clearly indicated in quite legible tags I added? Also: when (d) it quite clearly took me more time to create them from scratch than it took you to tag them without adequate discussion? Dahn (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

File:JTK Stearne Passport.jpg

Not sure if this type of inner page of a Canadian passport is covered under en:Crown Copyright#Canada per COM:CANADA#General rules, but the front cover of a 2013 passport (en:File:Canadian ePassport Cover (2013).JPG) is treated as non-free use and the inner pages seems to include many more possibly copyrightable elements than the cover. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The image of the cover is probably not free because it is derived from the relatively recent 1994 version of the Coat of Arms, drawn by Cathy Bursey-Sabourin. (By the way, the description page of Wikipedia file should specify that.) I think you are right that the inner pages are also not free. The image shows the standard graphism of the passport pages and also a photograph of the now deceased holder of the passport. Such photographs are usually from professional photographers. I think the file should be deleted. However, we can understand why the uploader uploaded it. There is an article in Wikipedia about the deceased person, the former holder of the passport. The article had "citation needed" tags about the given name and the date of birth of the person. As (probably) a relative of the deceased person, the user tried to help confirm those facts by adding a link to a website, but that link was removed by another user and the "citation needed" tags were constantly reinserted. The uploader likely concluded that a way to end this was to upload an image of the passport pages as evidence. The user has been inactive since two years and may not even notice it, but someone could leave a friendly message on their Wikipedia talk page to tell them why the image can't be kept. I know you are good for explaining things to inexperienced users. :) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the input. I noticed how and most likely why the file was being used on Wikipedia, but that's more of a discussion for Wikipedia than Commons; so, I didn't want to bring it up here. If the file does end up deleted and the uploader wants to know why, then they can always ask. If you feel like leaving a friendly message on his Wikipedia user talk page, then you can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Ariosh logo new.png

This seems simple enough to be {{PD-text logo}} at least per COM:TOO United States, but not sure per COM:TOO Nigeria. Should this be verified by OTRS, particularly since it's licensed as "own work" under a {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} license? The logo can be seen ariosh.com and the company is claiming copyright over the website's content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Michel Temer Flickr account

While reviewing files uploaded from Michel Temer Flickr account and I discovered that 2 similary files uploaded the same day contains 2 different licenses: Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0) here and Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) there, the latter being a Pro account. Any opinion? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it is almost certain that in 2018 the photographer Marcos Corrêa was an employee of the presidency as an institution, or the government, and not an employee of Temer personally. So, the owner of the copyright would be the presidency, or the government, not Temer. The correct license would be the license offered by the actual owner of the copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Temer was president at the time when this photo was uploaded. Both licences are OK.--Roy17 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't matter that he was president or anything. He's not above the laws. He can't give something he doesn't own. He can't personally give away the palace furniture and the country's assets. It's not his property. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Both flickr accounts were official accounts of the then president of Brazil. Period. And obviously Temer isnt the photographer nor the manager of his flickr account. When he was president, presidential staff handled it. Feel free to challenge https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource:52454189%20insource:/\/PR/ if you disagree.--Roy17 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: It's very interesting but we are here to solve the issue. What are we intended to do? Is there a valid reason that CC BY 2.0 should prevail to CC BY-NC-SA 2.0? Thanks, --Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, I uploaded two scans of maps originally published in 1757 ([23], [24]). I assume I should use the {{pd-scan}} template, however it says: "You must also include a United States public domain tag". Looking to documentation I think I should add somewhere the {{PD-old-assumed}} tag, since I know that it was published in 1757 but the author is unknown and therefore also his/her death date. I have seen there are possible parameters for the {{pd-scan}} template, but now I'm a little bit confused. Can you put me in the right direction to understand which template should I use? --Sette-quattro (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sette-quattro: User:Alexis Jazz/Assuming worst case copyright#Safe year of creation for public domain table. (and that's conservative, Commons policy is more lax) You can use {{PD-scan|PD-old-100-expired}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Thanks a lot, your tables are really useful! --Sette-quattro (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, For something published in 1757, the United States tag can be "PD-US-expired". And the other tag can be "PD-old-100", because for a work from 1757, it is certain that the author died more than 100 year ago. (The tag "PD-old-assumed" is intended more for works for which some doubt is still possible. When the case is certain, this tag should be avoided, because it gives the impression to the reader that there is a doubt when actually there is no doubt.) -- Asclepias (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!--Sette-quattro (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

File:South Carolina African American History Monument (7917141422).jpg

I'm wondering what some others think about the 3D artwork shown in this photo. There's no FOP in the US for 3D artwork per COM:FOP United States, but this just looks like an en:obelisk of some kind with some metal work placed in front. Symboliclly it might have lots of meaning, but might it be just simple enough per COM:TOO United States to not be considered eligible for copyright protection. TOO might be applied differently (or not all) when it comes to artistic works, but otherwise I don't think the file can be kept per COM:PCP; the photo's licensing might be OK, but the sculpture was unveiled in 2001. So, it's not old enough to be PD and it seems to be more of a COM:DW than incidental or otherwise de minimis. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It has a sculptor named on the plaque, but it may be under COM:TOO US.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a pretty basic obelisk. Not copyrightable IMO.--Roy17 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G. and Roy17: Should there be a license added for the sculpture if it's too simple to be protected by copyright? {{PD-textlogo}} is used for logos, but I'm not sure if there's an equivalent for 3D works of art. I found {{PD-US-statue/proposal}} but I don't think that's an accepted license yet and I'm not sure if it would even apply to sculptures deemed to be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection. Would the licensing for the photo simply be sufficient to cover both the photo and the sculpture in cases like this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
{{PD-ineligible}} is the more generic version of that situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that Clindberg. Do you think the photo's license can cover both it and the sculpture if the latter is PD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly, Roy17, and Clindberg: Any objections to this edit?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. It seems fine to me if that's the most suitable license and two licenses are needed. I'm still not too sure as to whether TOO is commonly applied in such a way to artistic works such as sculptures, etc., but the only option appears to be deletion if the sculpture cannot be verified to be not protected by copyright for some other reason or to have at least been released under a free license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Some years ago, I uploaded this image of a different obelisk. For indicating the licensing of the obelisk (which was considered to be PD-ineligible) along with the licensing of the photo, I subsequently used the {{Licensed-PD}} template (along with including a link to a relevant VP/C discussion.) --Gazebo (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Virtual cropping of an image

I have a question about File:Jimmy Nielsen, Seth Sinovic, and Kerry Zavagnin of Sporting KC pose with MLS Cup.jpg. There do seem to be a number of copyrightable elements in this photo, and I can understand the argument of de minimis being applied to them. My understanding is that trying to create crops (i.e. new files) of these copyrighted elements is probably not going to be allowed (without the permission of their copyright holder) much in the same way as simply uploading individual photos of each element is not going to be allowed. What about using the Wikipedia software to create a "virtual crop" of the image? (I'm not sure if "virtual crop" is the proper term to use to describe this) In the Wikipedia article about the en:Philip F. Anschutz Trophy, some kind of code/syntax is being used to essentially "crop" the image without actually creating a new file. The means for "cropping" might be different, but the end result seems the same. Is something like this OK since it technically is the same original image being used? FWIW, I'm not trying to get any files deleted or removed; it just seems like an interesting question to me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It's not okay, enwiki creates copyvios this way. I've seen it before. In this case though, the COM:DM claim isn't right either. The trophy is not DM here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I dispute your statement that in en:Philip F. Anschutz Trophy 'some kind of code/syntax is being used to essentially "crop" the image without actually creating a new file'; rather, that article is using nonfree en:File:Philip F. Anschutz Trophy (updated).jpg in the standard way. If you are interested in such code/syntax, please see phab:T9757.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: You're looking at the current version of the article after the "cropping" was removed and replaced with a different image by Alexis Jazz. If you check the article's history, you'll see the version I was refering to in my OP. Also, see en:WP:REFUND#File:Philip F. Anschutz Trophy (updated).jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Nielsen, Seth Sinovic, and Kerry Zavagnin of Sporting KC pose with MLS Cup.jpg for more details. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: I'm sorry I didn't look more closely. Now I see what SounderBruce did with relatively positioned nested divs in this edit. I don't know what we can do to prevent such uses outside Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G. and Marchjuly: Usually they use en:Template:CSS image crop. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Old file revision deleted, DR closed. Yann (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of File:The Mickey Mouse Club Mouseketeers Sharon Baird 1956.jpg

Some years ago, I uploaded this image of Sharon Baird. The image that I uploaded was extracted from an existing image. In early July, the existing image was deleted due to copyright concerns. If the extracted image of Sharon Baird (that is linked in the title of this post) is copyrighted and non-free, then I would be all right with that image being deleted. (In addition, having the image deleted by an admin or having the image automatically deleted due to being tagged with {{Dw no source since}} would be far preferable to the image being deleted due to a takedown notice from an outside copyright holder.) --Gazebo (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Everyone please comment at Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Mickey Mouse Club Mouseketeers Annette Funicello 1956.jpg. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

File:First Issue of Truckin.jpg

Hi, How do we know there was no copyright notice? Is it necessarily on the first page? Pinging @Solo12gauge: . Regards, Yann (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The rules are limited but complex, but it generally should be on the title page or the reverse thereof. This is obviously a reprint, and I'm not sure about the copyrightability of the new stamp on the front, and technically the lack of a copyright notice wouldn't matter here since it is a new reprint, though removing one would be very unwise, just for this exact scenario.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I looked up the exact rules, and they're broad enough not to rely on, especially in the case of a magazine. The whole magazine should probably be checked, even if it is there, it's generally going to be where I said.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yann and Prosfilaes: It's common for American magazines to put the copyright notice with the publisher information, which often doesn't appear until the 4th or 5th page. It would be very surprising for a commercial American magazine from the 70s to not have a copyright notice at all. Kaldari (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. So Commons:Deletion requests/File:First Issue of Truckin.jpg‎. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Signatures

Sorry for my English. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Autograph-VolodymyrZelensky.png. Is the uploader to prove (how?) this particular signature is trivial enough and if so, am I to believe these 8,353 files have strong evidence to be considered as such? --VLu (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

See Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag and use {{PD-signature}} when appropriate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Completely useless response from a user who did not even open this DR. VLu (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that you knew the answer to the question but were just whining about the DR here? PD-trivial is the wrong license for this and never should have been used. Trivial is the wrong question. The closing is questionable since we don't seem to have any information about what the standard is in Ukraine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Opinion on upload

I just uploaded this photo [25]. It was downloaded from an application at the National Register of Historic Places [26]. The application was for the United States Bullion Depository and was made by the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. On the back of the photo is a sticky note that reads 1. US bullion Depository 2. Fort Knox, KY, 3. US Army 4. Marc 25, 1968. 5. UNIC 6. View From NW 7. Only Photo. [27]. I assumed I was safe.

I then came across two identical photos at Alamy. One claiming the photo was taken on 2012. [28]. The other claiming it was taken on January 1960 [29] but with a title that is 1968.

So was I was mistaken in assuming that the image at the NHRP and submitted by the government was taken by the military? Should I speedy delete my upload? Or would Alamy claim ownership of what is actually PD? Work permit (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Alamy claims a copyright on everything. Total nonsense of course. I think this image is fine. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

IagoQnsi's own reviews

IagoQnsi (talk · contribs) has reviewed 27 of his own uploads. 26 of them have the same source. Example: File:FC Cincinnati 2019 kit reveal IMG 0772.jpg. Could the community please decide whether this particular licence is acceptable? If no, please DR (VFC Category:FC Cincinnati 2019 kit reveal at Music Hall and advanced select wikitext containing "user\=IagoQnsi").

@IagoQnsi: do not review your own uploads.--Roy17 (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: Can you link me to the policy/precedent that says image reviewers should not review their own images? I have been trusted with the power to review image licenses, and I did indeed review the licenses of these images before tagging them as reviewed – why does it matter who uploaded them? It's also worth noting that I was the person who tagged those images as needing a review in the first place, as I wanted to make sure those images would not be deleted if the link ever went dead (i.e. it's not like someone else challenged those images and I tried to pull a fast one). –IagoQnsi (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Commons:License review: "[...] image-reviewers may not review their own uploads [...] This ensures that at least two individuals [...] have checked that the license choice is correct. Reviews by image-reviewers on their own uploads will be considered invalid." -- Asclepias (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Asclepias: Ah I'm sorry, I didn't see that part. My mistake; it will not happen again. I have changed the 26 images in the category above to be marked as still needing review; @Roy17: I don't know what the 27th image is, but please revert my review on it. –IagoQnsi (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not super important but I thought I'd mention it in case anyone wants to weigh in. I've sent a suggestion to User:Majora (the LicenseReview.js author) that the script could warn reviewers if they attempt to review their own images, in hopes of preventing someone from making the same mistake as me. My message to them is here: User talk:Majora#LicenseReview.js suggestion: warn against self-review?. –IagoQnsi (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I got all the ones that were marked as needing license review, but that's not all the ones in the category Category:FC_Cincinnati_2019_kit_reveal_at_Music_Hall. Honestly, though:
  1. If they're your own work, marking them as needing licensereview isn't necessary; license review is for images that you don't own, but that are online as released somewhere, to check in case they stop being online. In this case, these are believably taken by a person at a public event of this soccer team. Uploading them to Google Drive and having a license reviewer check that you did so does not really help anything.
  2. Do we really need over 20 photos of a soccer team demonstrating their new uniform? I mean, sure, we need a photo of each member, and probably at least one photo of the uniform. Maybe three (front, back, side?). But here we have photos apparently taken every few seconds of the event. I'd be willing to delete over half of these as redundant. --GRuban (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@GRuban: I kinda disagree. As for needing 20 photos: to get a good headshot, many photos are desirable. Being taken a few seconds apart can make all the difference here. As for needing LR: imagine someone finds File:FC Cincinnati 2019 kit reveal IMG 0870.jpg in 5 years without a license review. Google drive is dead and probably not archived, IagoQnsi hasn't contributed in 2 years. No proof of license, uploader left: delete. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: License review isn't what you seem to think. It isn't OTRS. If I upload an image, say it is my work, that is much the same weight as if I also upload it to Google drive and also say it is my work there, after all, it's still only me saying that I'm the owner. LR is for when I upload someone else's work from someone else's website, and that website says it's free. --GRuban (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@GRuban: the uploader is not the claimed copyright holder in this case. I find no sufficient evidence to prove the owner of the google drive album is the twitter user Joe H.--Roy17 (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: If you click the "info" button, you can see that the Google Drive folder was created by someone named Joe H. on February 12, 2019, and they also uploaded the LICENSE.txt file asking that attribution be given to the Twitter account. I suppose we technically have no proof that Joe on Google Drive and Joe on Twitter are the same person, but I don't see any reason to question it (why would someone lie to attribute their photos to someone else?). These photos were not uploaded anywhere else online prior to February 12, 2019, so I see no reason to doubt that they are legitimately owned by the uploader. If you really think it's an issue, I can ask Joe to post a tweet claiming ownership or something like that (he's a friend of mine), but I don't think it's necessary and I'd rather not bother him over this. –IagoQnsi (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@GRuban: I'm afraid not. For starters, IagoQnsi is not Joe H. as Joe is a friend of IagoQnsi. Second, see COM:OTRS (interestingly, it's nowhere on any policy page, but widely accepted): "The image was first published on my website, or on my own space of a shared website. That's great! Please follow Creative Commons' instructions to adopt the free culture license of your choice. It will then be reviewed when files are uploaded by you or others. Use the Internet Archive's "Save Page Now" feature to store proof of your license statement."
And this is needed. Even if your username matches the URL (like www.username.com), you still can't prove you own that site. For an example, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:WuvBernardoByPhilKonstantin.jpg. And without a license review, the license statement on the website (Google Drive in this case) might as well not exist. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
That review is so depressing.--GRuban (talk) 12:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@GRuban: I've seen far more depressing deletions. A bit more trust would be nice, but that's not how it is. If being nice and saying "no, you don't need to adhere so strictly to the rules, we trust you" just results in possible paranoia deletions, I'd rather be mean. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't ever go to the dark side, Alexis, or you will cite precedent that will convince us to delete half the Commons. --GRuban (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@GRuban: I think that's unlikely for more reasons than one.. Btw, upon closer inspection of the photos, some are silly similar and near-duplicate without providing any feasible headshot. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

File:American-black-sculptor-and-former-test-pilot-Edward-Joseph-Ed-391768059582.jpg

If the date this photo was taken is unknown and it's sourced to IMS Vintage Photos. I couldn't fine the photo on the source website, but did find it used quite a bit online. Can it be verified that this is really {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Escudo seleccion colombia 1962.jpg

This file seems unlikely to be "own work" and the a bit more complex for {{PD-simple}} or {{PD-textlogo}} even per COM:TOO United States. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I already discussed this on the English Wikipedia here, but was told to discuss it on Commons if I were to find out about the copyright status of the logo in Finland, the logo's country of origin. It is a learning experience for my future reference in this case.

Essentially, the logo is a composition of a somewhat wavy checkered racing flag and impact text with solid gray lettering added below for a 3D effect. A black border is added around the logo. While I am convinced that the logo is free in the United States, even after reading TOO Finland, I cannot decide what Finland thinks of it. The impact text is very likely free there, and I think so is the 3D gray lettering, but I am not certain whether the checkered flag counts as being artistic and thus copyrightable. I can probably get away with uploading it locally to English Wikipedia, but if I were to benefit other Wikimedia projects, I would like to hear opinions on whether it is free in Finland and allowed on Commons. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I know nothing about Finnish law. Comparing this to examples in Commons:TOO Finland, I'd say the flag may be comparable to Save the Children Fund logo and the tulip and copyrighted.--Roy17 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Should I upload it locally to English Wikipedia with the license saying that it is free in the United States but not in its country of origin to be on the safe side? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gamingforfun365: yes I think that's the best way.--Roy17 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Chase.png

Not sure about this file's licensing. Isn't the content in letters/notices sent out by a company subject to copyright protection similar to the way the text content in a book would also be subject to copyright protection? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a COM:SCREENSHOT and therefore derivative work. Evidence of permission is required. Regards. T CellsTalk 14:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
That's kind of what I though might be the case. I'll DR to file to see what others thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

In researching a related issue for English Wikisource I read up on COM:Indonesia and found what looks like possible issues.

COM:Indonesia lists two classes of exemptions from copyright with respective PD license templates. The first refers to Article 42 which lists works which are exempted from copyright (roughly corresponding to PD-USGov) and to be tagged with {{PD-IDNoCopyright}}. The other class, though, refers to Article 43, and lists acts which are to be considered non-infringing for otherwise copyrighted works. That is, it is not giving exemptions from copyright (not PD), just listing things you can do in spite of that copyright (it actually corresponds more to a limited form of fair use than a public domain provision). This latter category is described as "These works may be uploaded to Commons and tagged with {{PD-IDGov}}."

The category lists the following non-infringing acts that may be performed on otherwise copyrighted material that I am concerned about:

  • Any Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction executed by or on behalf of the government, unless stated to be protected by laws and regulations, a statement to such Works, or when Publication, Distribution, Communication, and/or Reproduction to such Works are made.
  • Production and distribution of the Copyrighted content through information technology and communication media that are not commercial and/or lucrative for the Author or related parties, or the Author expresses no objection to the manufacture and dissemination in question.

The first looks, superficially, in the context, as if it was a PD-USGov copyright exemption. But by my reading that's not actually the case: it's saying that the Indonesian government can "publish, distribute, communicate, and/or reproduce" copyrighted works without that act being considered infringing, with an exception for when there is a statement to the contrary on the work itself (or such a statement is made at the time of the act). If that is correct this exception does not extend to us or our reusers, and anything uplooaded under only that provision is a copyright infringement.

In addition, since this is not an exemption from copyright, but an exemption from acts that are to be considered infringing, the fact that it fails to list derivative works or alterations means this is actually a -ND limitation like CC-ND.

The second bullet seems to be saying that filesharing (in essence) for non-commercial purposes is not considered infringement (WIPO agrees: "It exempts the non-commercial reproduction and distribution of copyrighted materials through information and technology media from the scope of the authors’ exclusive rights."). Which means this is actually a -NC limitation like CC-NC.

As far as I know, both -ND and -NC limitations are explicitly disallowed on Commons, which would mean anything tagged with {{PD-IDGov}} under either of those provisions would be ineligible for hosting here.

I'm not exactly an expert on this, and with only a machine translation of the law itself available it's hard to be certain certain about nuances of phrasing. I may well be—probably is, even—completely wrong on this, is what I'm saying. But that's what I concluded anyway, so I figured I'd better bring it up here. --Xover (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, one of the aspects is the the old NL and former colonies thing. It's a tricky one. The part about works communicated by the government must be read keeping in mind the context of the old NL law, although the respective wording of the modern laws of NL and former colonies may have diverged. To get a general idea, you can see for example Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NL-Gov/en and then see how the language of the Indonesian law may differ. Doing a quick search, I see there are some lengthy discussions that may be related to the topic and that may or may not be relevant, for example this (which I did not read). If you are motivated by the topic, perhaps you can do a more complete search and arrive at a conclusion and clarify COM:CRT/Indonesia if necessary. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The image montage File:Golden Hollywood.png incorporates a number of existing photos and film stills. However, the description for the Golden Hollywood montage references an image File:IngridBergmanportrait.jpg that was deleted in June of last year. As of this writing, the Golden Hollywood montage was last updated on January 13, 2017. Assuming that the deleted Ingrid Bergman image was copyrighted and non-free, it might be useful to look at the Golden Hollywood montage and, if necessary, to adjust the montage in the event that it is found to include the non-free Ingrid Bergman image. --Gazebo (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@PawełMM: This may be of interest. --Gazebo (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Gazebo: I exchanged a photo of Ingrid Bergman for copyright reasons. PawełMM (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@PawełMM: Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Carolineansell.jpg

This photo of a former MP in the UK was uploaded by the user CAnsell in January 2018 under the {{OGL}} licence with a source of https://www.gov.uk (no specific page given). The same image can also be found at this local news article from March 2016. To me it seems like this image may not have been from the gov.uk website - and may not be available under a free licence - but I can't be sure, as the news article doesn't have a specific copyright/author tag, like other local news websites may have, so I wanted to ask other more experienced editors what they think about it. Seagull123 (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the OGL (and OPL, but a different story) templates should be updated to clarify what is permitted and what is not. https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector-information/uk-government-licensing-framework/open-government-licence/ is probably the homepage of OGL. Its Guidance for users says You cannot use information which has not been offered for use expressly under the OGL. I suppose this means for all crown copyright works only those released with an explicit OGL licence (be it in the caption or on the webpage) can be considered OGL, otherwise they are still crown. So a claim of OGL must be supported by a link and tagged for licence review.
(This is different from OPL for Parliamentary Copyright, which says Use of Parliamentary material is governed by the terms of the Open Parliament Licence. The Open Parliament Licence applies to material made available in hard copy or electronically. It covers not only material in which either House owns the copyright or database right but also material published before 1 August 1989 in which Crown copyright subsists. In other words, everything made by the British Parliament except the ones exempted is OPL.)--Roy17 (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Thanks for the reply! I can't find the image on the gov.uk website (or the Parliament one), and so I can't find anywhere it has been expressly published under the OGL either - so I'm thinking more and more that it may not be available under said licence. I'll have another look, but if not, I will likely tag it for deletion, as I can't find evidence that it is under this licence. Seagull123 (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2019/07&oldid=364042965"