Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/06

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

New Nigerian FOP

Nigeria just enacted a new copyright law, effective on March 17, 2023 (upon President's signature). See also the Mondaq article and the Conversation article.

Is the FOP in the new law still acceptable? At Section 20(1)(e): "the inclusion in an audiovisual work or a broadcast of an artistic work situated in a place where it can be viewed by the public." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I fell short of adding OK/Not OK status for COM:FOP Nigeria. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Closing the thread. It is obvious that it is no longer fit for Commons: Commons is not a broadcasting entity. Nigerian FOP (even if not retroactive) just became similar or identical to FOP of Tanzania, Ghana, Benin, Djibouti, Namibia, and South Africa where only audio-visual or broadcasting media can legally use public space artistic works. RIP Nigerian FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 02:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Moment before Shinzo Abe was shot.png

This image was taken from a YouTube video made by New York Post, which according to their terms: "owns, solely and exclusively, all right, title and interest in and to the Services and all content contained and/or made available through the Services (“Content”)","The term “Content” includes, without limitation, all [...] photographs [...]". This mean that file violated the license.

What I should do now? 183.80.4.138 09:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know the original video wasn't taken by the New York Post. So they are probably reusing it because it's PD. Although I'd double check, but it should be easy to find the original, or at least a version closer to it that has a license. If not, then personally I'd just assume it's PD anyway considering the nature of the event and who was there filming at the time (mainly, if not exclusively, amateurs). --Adamant1 (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: why would the filming being by amateurs make it public domain? - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
At least from what I've seen with amateur videos of major events that are taken with cell phones like this one looks to be the person will release it on social media or similar under a free license. It's possible the New York Post got republishing rights to the video, but then I've seen that same clip in other places before and I'm pretty sure it's on YouTube in multiple places to. That's why I said to double check though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I assume they will just publish them on social media without any thoughts about licences, and people will republish them, without contemplating legal issues even for a second. That's the way everybody intends it to happen. Sadly, copyright law says otherwise. Any of those who filmed could sue anybody who uses the clips, and will win unless the reuser is able to produce a fair use rationale. We protect our reusers by requiring the legal procedures, which is awkward in many cases, but necessary for our mission with current laws. Hopefully some of those videos are indeed free. I don't think any country has a "clearly intended to be free" provision. The USA had one before joining the Berne convention (just don't add a copyright statement), but the system was awkward in other ways. –LPfi (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
They may release them to social media, and accept some copying, but a "free license" is a much more far-reaching thing that we can't assume without an explicit license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

File:IMG-20230603-WA0005.jpg

The file is auto-protected and thus couldn't be nominated for speedy deletion. From this article the image is attributed to en:Press Trust of India which didn't publish under compatible license for Commons. Thus, this should be speedily deleted. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

If we cannot be 100% sure that the image is compatible with Commons requirements, it should be deleted. The uploader has a previous instance of uploading a copyvio image. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The photo has been nominated for deletion in deletion requests. --C messier (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Suspected screen capture copyvio

At a Wikipedia thread, there was thought that File:Devon Conway (Cricketer).jpg might be a screen capture. In cases like this where there is no metadata and it is suspicious (new user, press conference, etc), is it better to use the "No permission link" or start a formal deletion request discussion? —Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

No permission would mean that there is literally no permission. Here, since it is claimed to be an own work, a permission is present. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Ruslik0: "Here, since it is claimed to be an own work, a permission is present": That's what is unclear about the own work claim, because {{File permission}} says

You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself

and {{No permission since}} has

This also applies if you are the author yourself.

So I was wondering if the "no permission" route was intended to be more lightweight, putting the onus on the uploader and less on the community.—Bagumba (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
If there is any question, I tend to prefer DRs. It gives a place for discussion, and a better record. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama in Guatemala

Greetings, how do we handle the restrictive freedom of panorama rules in Guatemala? I've been wondering about File:AntiguaGuatemalaBanner4.jpg, File:AntiguaGuatemalaBanner3.jpg and File:AntiguaGuatemalaBanner2.jpg, are they copyrightable or did the copyrights on the buildings lapse out of old age? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the age of the buildings, nor the age of the original photos, but you might want to research also older laws and transitory regulations, as FoP seems to have been abandoned only in 2006 (according to Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/11#FOP guatemala is all wrong, part 2). –LPfi (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, from the appearance it seems like all the buildings, cathedral and the arch are older than 2006. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: the 2006 cutoff date is the cutoff date of uploading, not of structures themselves. For structures themselves, the author (architect or sculptor) must have died more than 75 years ago for structures to be in public domain. If anonymous, 75 years from completion or publication, consistent with rules of {{PD-Guatemala}}. Older Guatemalan buildings by long-deceased architects can be tagged with {{PD-old-architecture}}, which is applicable to public domain buildings of countries with no complete FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
So what restrictions are there for a non-authorised pre-2006 photos of new (say 2005) architecture?
Of the linked three photos two are of the Arco de Santa Catalina, one of the Cathedral of Guatemala City. Both structures are old, but at least the cathedral was repaired after the 1917 and 1976 earthquakes (according to es-wp). I don't know whether there were changes that affect the copyright. All three photos are from after 2006.
–LPfi (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@LPfi: simple answer: {{PD-old-architecture}} applies. That template is specially designed for public domain architecture of no-FOP countries, with a sub-tag for U.S. compliance since Commons must also honor U.S. laws. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, that is PD-old (70pma with no "deathyear" argument) combined with a U.S. specific tag. Guatemala is 75pma. Normally, for really old works (buildings or not) a simple PD-old is fine; even if there was no 1990 architecture cutoff the US copyright would have expired anyways. Secondly, images of architecture are not included in the scope of the copyright for architectural works in the U.S., so they aren't derivative works in the first place so there are no rights to recognize -- {{FoP-US}} is really the only tag needed, if that. PD-US-architecture would almost never be valid for a work that can be uploaded here. The license for the photo as given is probably just fine for this situation, given the age of the buildings. PD-old-100-expired would also work fine if you really wanted a tag for the architecture (and something like File:AntiguaGuatemalaBanner2.jpg would probably be fine anyways, as it's a photo of a wider subject). Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg: is {{FoP-US}} supposedly for post-1990 buildings physically located in the U.S.? Using the template for works of "no-FOP" countries like Guatemala, IMO, does more harm than good for the ff. two reasons: the categorization will make Category:FoP-United States populated with buildings from no-FOP countries instead of being confined for categorization of US buildings themselves; and some may claim that perhaps, through US freedom of panorama, we can do away with restrictive FOP of no-FOP countries and copyrighted buildings of no-FOP countries be tagged as such even if not so since the no-FOP of the source country needs to be taken into account (France/Greece/Ukraine may slap Wikimedia with take down demands if Commons would stick to US law).
The creation of {{PD-old-architecture}} that contains the PD-US tag is a response to claims by some users like @Ymblanter and Brainulator9: at this discussion that PD-US status must be taken into account as Commons must also comply with US copyright rules, not just rules of buildings' countries of origin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I said in that discussion literally the same as Carl Lindberg is saying here. Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
For photos of buildings, U.S. law is the same regardless of when a building is from -- they are either not in the scope of the architectural copyright, so they are not derivative works, or the architectural copyright does not exist, meaning they are not derivative works. I guess if it's a building not visible from a public place, there could be a 1990 difference. But normally for photos of buildings, we only need a US license for the photo itself copyright itself. Statues are different, but current FoP policy for those is to ignore a possible US copyright on the statue if the photo was taken in a FoP country, under the hope that the FoP law would affect how the US determines things. I don't think there are any precedents in US cases for that either way, but that has been long-standing policy. A DMCA request on such photos would likely be honored (i.e. photos deleted); that happened with some Claes Oldenburg works a long time ago. There is a {{Not-free-US-FOP}} tag we can use on photos where the statue/work makes the photo possibly not OK in the US; that tag is not necessary for buildings since they are not derivative. {{FoP-US}} can be used on photos of newer US buildings, in case the derivative aspect is questioned. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, would photographing a manuscript (which itself is in the public domain) such as in this case be eligible for copyright or would it be considered a "slavish reproduction" of a two-dimensional work and thus be able to be uploaded as per Commons:2D copying (photographing books, etc. with the intention of faithfully reproducing the 2D content)? ThethPunjabi (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The "slavish reproduction" is for a result which is essentially a straight copy of the original work. The court case was for a straight-on photo of a painting, cropped at the painting's borders. A photograph like the one above has additional creativity; a photo which is not straight-on loses that assumption (not to mention including other elements in the photo). If the underlying work was still under copyright, it would be a derivative work, but the photo still has its own copyright either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg I see, thank you for explaining. What about if one were to crop the image so that only the contents of the folios can be seen in the frame? Would such a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph be able to be uploaded? ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
If you were to crop to only the original work, and try and undo the angle such that it shows more like it would have head-on, then yes probably OK. The only expression left is that of the original object, as such it is now more a "copy" and not a "derivative work". Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg Thanks again, you cleared up my confusion. :) ThethPunjabi (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Polygondwanaland.jpg

Per the description provided for File:Polygondwanaland.jpg, the band seems to have released the album into the public domain with the following statement:

"This album is FREE. Free as in, free. Free to download and if you wish, free to make copies. Make tapes, make CD's, make records...We do not own this record. You do. Go forth, share, enjoy."

However, I'm wondering if that includes the album cover art and also can be assumed to include commercial and derivative reuse even though it doesn't explicitly state as much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Polygone solution du "problème einstein"

Bonjour, J'ai importé sur Wikimedia-Commons l'image d'un polygone que j'ai réalisée à l'aide du logiciel Geogebra: File:Spectre de Smith.png. Ce polygone est une solution du "problème einstein" proposée par messieurs Smith, Myers, Kaplan et Goodman-Strauss dans leur récente publication sur ArXiv :[1]https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.17743.pdf A chiral aperiodic monotile] Évidemment ce sont ces messieurs et pas moi qui ont trouvé cette solution. Cependant la forme de la tuile de Smith est très simple, constituée de segments de droites d'égales longueurs et d'angles de 90°, 120° ou 180°. Une telle figure de géométrie est-elle soumise à droits d'auteur ? Faut-il demander aux auteurs une autorisation pour présenter cette tuile sur Wikipédia ? Merci de m'informer du statut légal de ce tte figure. Jacques Mrtzsn (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Non, {{PD-shape}} s'applique ici. Yann (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Les formules mathématiques n'ont pas de droits d'auteur, et je crois que la solution est une forme de formule (on peut tracer le polygone à partir d'une formule), donc le polygone est dans le domaine public. {{PD-shape}} est utilisable. FunnyMath (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
En fait, les formules mathématiques simples sont dans le domaine public. On peut bien sûr tracer des dessins soumis à droits d'auteur à partir des formules mathématiques. Cependant, le polygone est quand même trop simple. FunnyMath (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Unpublished reports of the European Commission

I know that works produced by the European Commission are in the public domain under 'PD-European-Commission', but does it apply to reports that were commissioned but never published? I have a specific example that I'm interested in: a 300 page report titled "Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU" which was produced by the Dutch company Ecorys under contract from the European Commission. The Commission then never published the report but Felix Reda got hold of a copy through the freedom of information law and published it on his blog.

I want to know if any restrictive copyright restrictions apply to this report or if it can be uploaded here to Commons. Ciridae (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

If the commission provided a report to a third party with permission to publish it, this I think can be regarded as publication. Ruslik (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
No, the third party was contracted to create the report. It did that but the European Commission did not publish the report. An EU MP released the unpublished report on his blog. Ciridae (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
If the report has been released to broad public then it is published. Ruslik (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
You can see here: "offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication" or "a work is ‘published’ if one or more copies or phonorecords embodying [the work] are distributed to the public with no explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to [the] disclosure of [the] contents [of that work]". Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
But there was hardly any offer, just a legal duty to give a copy to anybody requesting it. Are all non-classified documents published just by having been made, and thus being available for such requests? Anyway, US law doesn't make EU documents PD, only EU law does. The question then is whether all works produced for the Commission are in the public domain. I don't see anything above about publishing having any significance, but I haven't read the statute itself. –LPfi (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

what code do I use to update profile photo?

I work for a celebrity who would like the profile photo updated. What code do I use to change the photo to a current one that she owns copyrights too? The photo has been used for publicity & merchandise & is on social media, etc. But I need to put a code in for Wikipedia or it gets removed. Just need to know which code. Thanks. Modsquad3 (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

There are three steps: you need to (1) upload it (preferably here to Commons, as it then can be used on all Wikipedias, not only one or a few language versions; there is an upload link in the main menu), (2) get her to email COM:VRT (instructions on that page; ask here to add you as CC recipient) to confirm she indeed owns the copyright and releases the photo under an acceptable licence (such as CC-BY-SA 4.0), and (3) write on the article talk page, suggesting somebody changes photos in the article. –LPfi (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

1986 Eliza advertisement

Is this 1986 advertisement (later reprinted almost a year later in 1987, once again without a copyright notice) for the microcomputer version of Eliza in the public domain as per {{PD-US-1978-89 advertisement}}? I don't see any copyright notices, and searching "Artificial Intelligence Research Group" in the public catalog of the copyright office hasn't yielded any results. There's a record TX0002728063 from 1990 for an IBM PC version of Eliza created in 1985, whose copyright holder is Stephen Grumette (b. 1937), but that seems to be the only thing he registered in the Copyright Office. Lugamo94 (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Contributors here may be interested in the ongoing discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Back of the iPhone 14 Pro.jpg

I have no idea whether it's eligible for copyright protection; would appreciate all input. DFlhb (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

File:"Tauragės radijo" logotipas.jpg

I think that the file license is mistagged, and I do not know if it would qualify for PD. The same image in PNG can be found on their website here: [2]

Nathanielcwm (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

California Government Code Public Records Act renumbered

Template {{PD-CAGov}} has a link to Government code § 6250 et seq.

That link and possibly others no longer work.

The Public Records Act has been renumbered as of January 2023.

Glrx (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Picture usage

Is it possible to copyright an image of a chemical compound? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Iwao-Ojima/publication/6461105/figure/fig3/AS:601640952410112@1520453789077/Fig-5-Chemical-structure-of-viriditoxin.png 2603:9001:4EF0:9160:1DFA:F393:9B01:8377 02:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Kneisel Quartet in 1891-1899 (Gardner Mus).jpg

The original photograph by Benjamin Falk of New York (died 1925) was taken between 1891 and 1899 and is in the public domain. The source for this upload was a copy of the photograph in the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum (here [3]). That copy was autographed and inscribed to Gardner by the members of the quartet. My reasoning in uploading was that the Gardner Museum may have a valid copyright on the inscribed and personalized copy (which can be considered a derivative work), but not on the underlying photograph itself. So I did not upload the entire image from the museum website, but instead cropped out the inscriptions around the border in order to return the photograph to its "original" form, and then uploaded that under PD-Scan. Questions: (1) Was my reasoning correct, and is the image in its present form acceptable for the Commons? (2) I forgot to strip out the museum's exif and iptc metadata before I uploaded the cropped version, so now they appear on the Commons image page. I've listed the museum as the source, so I'm not trying to hide that, and it shouldn't affect the legitimacy of the PD-Art/PD-Scan claim, but it still doesn't look good to have the museum's copyright notice displayed on the same page that rejects that copyright and applies a public domain license. What's the best way to handle this? If the image in its cropped form is acceptable here, should I remove the metadata and upload it again, and then ask for the first version to be deleted? Thanks, Crawdad Blues (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether the inscription created a derivative is debatable perhaps, but I think it wouldn't matter any more even if it did. If the photograph itself is no longer eligible for copyright protection because of its age and the inscription was made at the time the photograph was taken, then it too would seem to be no longer eligible for copyright protection because of its age. My guess is that the museum is probably claiming copyright over the digitalized version of the photo it created, but that's not really a kind of claim that Commons recognizes because it's not recognized as such under US copyright law. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see. I was being cautious and treating the derivative work (if it is one) as published only in 2017, when it was placed online, since display in a gallery does not in itself always count as publication. But even if that is the case, for works published after 1989 it's 70 years after death of the creators (= the members of the quartet who inscribed it) or 120 years after creation, and the signed copy passes PD on both counts. So that just leaves the question of the metadata. Do we keep the museum's copyright notice in the file and visible on the Commons page, in spite of the fact that we don't accept it? Or if I overwrite the file with a new version that doesn't have the metadata, what's the process for requesting deletion of the previous version (as opposed to the image as a whole)? Crawdad Blues (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
@Crawdad Blues: If you are worried about the invalid copyright claim i the EXIF, just explain in the "Permissions" section of {{Information}} why it is almost certainly invalid. - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, I assume the boilerplate text in the PD-Scan template does that sufficiently, so I'll stop worrying about it and just leave it as is. Thanks to both of you. Crawdad Blues (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Potential (?) gold mine for free images of prominent Chinese actors

王菲- 清風徐來 Official MV - YouTube

This music video, marked under an acceptable CC-BY license, is released under the official account of Faye Wong, a prominent Chinese singer whose music was featured in the film "Lost in Hong Kong", starring many prominent Chinese actors. It features several scenes from the movie "Lost in Hong Kong".

Unfortunately, I am unsure if Faye Wong or her production company has the right to release these scenes under the Commons license. The initial copyright tag says it is under (C) Faye Productions LTD, but I am unsure if it only refers to the music. Would only the company who produced the movie have the right to release it? Would Faye Productions be able to release it if they owned part of the copyright of the movie? Or can we assume that they received the consent of the movie company to release this **official** video under a free license in the first place?

Thoughts? If this does turn out to be valid, we'll get several professional quality free photographs of prominent Chinese celebrities, including Xu Zheng, who is currently sorely lacking one.

Thanks! Bremps (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Am I missing something here?

File:KatFL Kirby artwork (1).webp So this image is *apparently* licensed under CC-BY 4.0, but it seems to be highly dubious. For one, the editor who uploaded it does not seem to have any affiliation with Nintendo, and also has another sus upload: File:Doodle Pmate.webp Source is "Unknown source".

I would've just gone ahead and deleted it myself, but the plot thickens:

Warning: One or more elements in this file are protected by copyright

Some parts of this file (the entire image) are not fully free but believed to be de minimis for this work. Derivatives of this file which focus more on the non-free element(s) may not qualify as de minimis and may be copyright violations. As a direct consequence, cropped versions of this file may require a review of their copyright status.

This information template was included because Copyrighted characters.

It's in a template! Which is being used to justify the Kirby file itself on the basis of "de minimis"!

I think I'm either tripping, or an obvious copyright violation that somehow sneaked it's way into a template. Can I have a more experienced editor to take a look at this and tell me if I'm missing something, or if this is a blatant copyvio?

Many thanks, Bremps (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It was uploaded as "own work", then a couple of IP editors changed the information (and added the silly de minimis tag) in the last week. It may well have been an original drawing, but it's likely derivative of the character, so can't be kept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bremps: What is "in a template"? The only image I see there is File:The Dark Knight movie poster - censored copyright.jpg, which appears not to be problematic. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
It appears to have been removed from the template, and swapped out with the Dark Knight file. Bremps... 15:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I think they were referring to the usage of the {{De minimis}} template on File:KatFL Kirby artwork (1).webp, with the problematic portion being labeled "the entire image", which of course makes it more than de minimis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Are gilded panels considered two-dimensional or three-dimensional works of art?

Would photographing a gilded panel (located in India) made in the 19th century be considered as a slavish reproduction of a 2D work or would it be considered a 3D work and copyright applies? This is the work in question: link ThethPunjabi (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  • As always for low reliefs, it's right on the borderline. I'd hesitate to upload it, because the photographer has a fair claim of creativity, but someone else may disagree. - Jmabel ! talk 04:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Is a photo of a t-shirt with a non-free logo on it freely licensed?

Please see File:David Gerard, Heathrow Terminal 5, 20110801 P1020447 (cropped).jpg. I asked on en:WT:DYK#Nomination David Gerard (author) if the non-free aspect of the original puzzle globe image was an issue. The general response I got was that it's probably OK, but nobody had a definitive answer, so raising it here where there's likely to be more expertise in this area. This image will potentially get onto the enwiki main page, so I want to be sure we're good to go. RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: seems pretty clearly de minimis. It's a picture of a person, wearing a T-shirt. It's not particularly a picture of the design on the T-shirt. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm quite certain the Wikipedia logo is freely licensed. Or am I missing something? Ixfd64 (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Allow old orphan works

Hi, I made a proposal on COM:VP/P#Allow old orphan works. Yann (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

How do I post a photo that has never been on Internet?

How do I post a photo that was given to me with permission to use it for any purpose? It has never been on the Internet. CommsKathy (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@CommsKathy: Whoever owns the copyright needs to grant an appropriate license. There are two ways they can do that in either of two ways:
  • Assuming it is clear that they are the license-holder, they can post it to a site clearly under their control and indicate the license there. You can then cite that as your source.
  • They can email a license release as described at COM:VRT. Probably have them cc you, so you can stay in the loop. In this case, this is probably the easier route.
Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Lizenz für Foto eines Teils einer Informationtafel in einem französischen Museum

Ich habe einen Teil einer Informationstafel zur Geschichte des Musiums (Portrait eines Gründungsmitliedes) nach erteileter Erlaubnis abgelichtet. Das Museum ist La Banque in Hyères [[4]]. Jetzt möchte das Bild in Wikimedia hochladenn. Was ist die richtige Lizens? Danke Siga (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Ein Problem dabei ist, dass es in Frankreich überhaupt keine für uns nutzbare Panoramafreiheit gibt. Wenn das Urheberrecht am Portrait noch nicht erloschen ist, wird man also nicht umhin kommen, dass der Urheberrechtsinhaber über das in COM:VRT beschriebene Verfahren sein Einverständnis zu einer freien Lizenz erteilt. Felix QW (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Abgebildet ist w:de:Elzèar Abeille de Perrin, der 1910 starb, das Foto ist also mindestens 113 Jahre alt. Der Urheber ist nicht ersichtlich und vermutlich auch nicht mehr auszumachen, eventuell ist es w:de:Nadar der ebenfalls 1910 starb und ein Bild von Abeille de Perrin machte, in dem dieser älter wirkt. Wäre schade, wenn ich das Bild nicht nutzen kann. Ich bin extra wegen Abeille de Perrin in das Museum nach Hyères gefahren! Die Tafel, von der das Porträt ein Ausschnitt ist, war auch auf einer Internetseite des Museums zu seiner Geschichte abgebildet.Siga (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
In der de:WP gibt es die pragmatische Regelung de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt-100, daher kannst du das Bild nach de:WP hochladen und problemlos in den Artikel einbinden. Die analoge Regelung bei Commons Template:PD-old-assumed verlangt 120 statt 100 Jahre, die geht also vermutlich nicht, solange du das Erstellungsjahr nicht mit derzeit 1903 oder vorher bestimmen kannst. Ok? --Goesseln (talk) 12:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Herzlichen Dank für diesen Hinweis. Nach einigem Herumprobieren habe ich jetzt die Datei in den Artikel einarbeiten können. --Siga (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Glyphs from fictional fonts (The Legend of Zelda) to Commons as SVG

Hello dear community,

I would like to extract the glyphs from the fictional writings of The Legend of Zelda (https://zeldauniverse.net/media/fonts/) and upload them individually as single glyphs to Commons. Is that okay from a copyright point of view? Or rather are the individual font glyphs simple enough? Specifically, these would be the following fonts I am looking at:

- HYLIAN 64
- ANCIENT HYLIAN
- TP HYLIAN
- SS ANCIENT HYLIAN
- ABLW BOTW HYLIAN
- GERUDO TYPOGRAPHY
- BOTW SHEIKAH

Thanks and greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

{{PD-font}} says raster renderings of typefaces are ineligible for copyright in the US, but vector format images can be copyrighted. More information on US copyright here: en:Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces#United_States. The same article (link) says typefaces are not copyrighted in Japan. So PNG files of simple typefaces (I'm not sure if all of them are simple enough) would be in the public domain in the US and its source country, meaning they can be uploaded. For vector images like SVG, you need to make sure that they are under a free license. Both the US and Japan have high thresholds for originality (see COM:TOO US and COM:TOO Japan), so at least a few of the typefaces should be OK. FunnyMath (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, this helps a lot :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome! FunnyMath (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
There's specific precedent for constructed writing systems being specifically ineligible for copyright in the US; Re. Newly created symbolic characters for new language is the Copyright Office's ruling on a similar matter. It's quite likely that much, if not all, of this reasoning would apply to these Zelda scripts as well. It would probably not apply to the "Hylian Symbols" font on the same web page, however, as those characters are not a system of communication. Omphalographer (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

PD-Chart???

Hi, I uploaded some diagrams with the license PD-Chart and now I'm not sure. The images are, among others:

As you can see the information given in the diagram is known, the method to show the information (a diagram) is not copyrighted and there is no any innovation.

Is there someone that doesn't agree?. Juan Villalobos (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  • @Juan Villalobos: I don't have time to look right now, but if you took the graphics directly from the sources, then these are problematic. If you used their data and made your own diagram, you're fine. Also, if you took the graphics directly from the sources, you can redo these in a way that is less of a slavish copy, and that should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Art from 2000 in the public domain (or perhaps not)

According to the uploader, this image is (i) "Self-portrait of the artist Thomas Kluge from 2000 used first in the danish book Under baretten by Weirup, Torben and later in the danish book Kluge: catalogue raisonné 1990-2020 by Fønss-Lundberg, T.C.", and (ii) in the public domain. I don't have access to either book (here's the publisher's description of the latter one), so can't check. But I find the PD status of work from 2000 appearing in a catalogue raisonné hard to believe. On the third hand, I'm unfamiliar with practices in (more or less) contemporary Danish art/publishing. Comments? -- Hoary (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion:
Glrx (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think some of my uploads may be copyvio

I tried to be aware of copyright issues before uploading, but after re-reading Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom and other pages, I'm afraid some of my uploads may be violated copyrights. I am adding copyvio to the ones I'm somewhat sure. But there are still some I'm uncertain:

Onthewings (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Onthewings: my take
Might be best to nominate them all for DRs, but for most I'd guess the outcome will be what I just said. - Jmabel ! talk 22:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Non-Commercial licenses

What's the reason for Commons:Licensing saying NC licensing is not accepted here? –Vipz (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  • It was a deliberate choice in the establishment of Wikipedia, twenty years ago. It could have been done the other way, it was a choice to do it this way.
Wikipedia is "free content", meaning that not only is it free to read, but it's also free to re-use for other purposes. That was the choice. Obviously this means that it must be built from resources that are at least this free. To allow this for commercial uses too makes it more useful, but requires that the source material used must also be free of non-commercial restrictions.
Wikimedia Commons inherited this choice and the implied restrictions. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Would all Wikimedia projects' use of such images comply with NC licensing, had they been allowed, as Wikimedia is a nonprofit org? Is commercial re-use useful only for third party users outside Wikimedia? Why couldn't NC files be allowed but with a prominent warning that commercial re-use of them is disallowed? Who benefits in the end - commercial Wikipedia mirrors perhaps? I only know that Wikimedia communities don't benefit, and only lose from this choice, with who knows how many NC images being rejected and deleted. –Vipz (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@Vipz: in addition to what Andy said, NC licenses are strictly forbidden (ref. Commons:Licensing#Forbidden licenses.) Commons follows the Definition of Free Cultural Works. Wikimedia is supposed to encourage everyone, including the governments, to release all of their educational content (monuments and architecture included) under free licenses so that everyone can benefit and enjoy; we are not supposed to give in to the pressures of governments or artists who continue to restrict freedom of panorama in various ways, either by removing FOP entirely (see COM:FOP Nigeria for an example, removing FOP for photos just recently) or by only providing FOP for non-profit or non-commercial uses (like what both France and Ukraine did). Read also Commons:Licensing/Justifications, for the rationale behind Wikimedia Commons' only acceptance of commercial licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: would reuploading NC files to individual Wikipedia projects be acceptable? –Vipz (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@Vipz: depends on each wiki. In the case of English Wikipedia, however, NC would still be treated as non-free content (see w:en:Template:Non-free with NC for example). Files tagged with such template would be treated similarly with other "fair use" files; files tagged as such must be used reasonably on mainspace enwiki articles. Unused files tagged with such template would be slapped with 1-week (7-day) countdown to deletion as orphaned non-free files. Photos that only serve to illustrate by décoration with little or no educational purpose would be unacceptable and could be removed from articles, to undergo the same 1-week countdown to deletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: To be honest, I don't see Wikimedia Commons (or "we") as giving in to to the pressures of governments because I doubt any of them have Wikimedia Commons in mind when creating such strict FOP laws. Entire countries' worth of content is being excluded simply for government stating that one should not commercialize copyrighted public space content, which is a reasonable restriction. To discourage regular uploaders/artists from using NC, can't there be a rigorous system of manual approval for NC, reserved for such 'entire countries' cases?
Finally, I will have to disagree with you on the last one, many NC photos exist only on Wikimedia Commons and alternatives on the Internet often don't exist. Many of them are of invaluable historical significance and not décoration with little or no educational purpose. Photography of architecture during a war as recent as 1990s, that is currently tagged for deletion, is not that however you spin it. I hope you respond to the latest ping on the deletion nomination page because you voted "delete" (presumably for every listed file) but didn't even address the other article (44) I invoked. –Vipz (talk) 10:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Vipz regarding your first point, I am not convinced that the governments don't have Wikimedia Commons in their mind in creating restrictive FOP legal rights. Wikimedia Commons is a website of Wikimedia Foundation, and in the minds of several governments WikiCommons = Wikimedia Foundation. Research about the events in July 2015 in which a former member of the European Parliament (from France) once proposed a non-commercial FOP to be made mandatory to the whole of European Union (then including UK which is yes-FOP), to counter a proposal by a former German MEP that proposed a permissive FOP to the whole EU. He specially mentioned both Wikimedia as well as Facebook (now Meta). Both of their proposal were turned down resulting to status quo (in which some countries like UK and Austria have liberal FOP but others like Slovenia and Romania have restrictive FOP). French politicians had Wikimedia in their minds during the copyright law update in 2016, resulting to a non-commercial FOP introduced in October that year.
You may think NC restriction is reasonable. It may be, but that does not mean Commons must accept NC licenses. By accepting NC licenses, Commons itself is running against its mission of providing free content that everyone in the world can use, share, and distribute without copyright restrictions. I forgot where in "Commons:" namespace page is the following statement is found: Wikimedia Foundation explicitly said that Wikimedia Commons can only host free content and must not host NC or fair use content. France and B&H — and to add both Vietnam and Nigeria which restricted their FOP rules lately — may want to be backwards despite the Internet and new media age where commercial use is practically plentiful, but Wikimedia Commons has survived for around 18 years (having been founded in 2004) despite regular removals of photos of Grande Arche, Burj Khalifa, N Seoul Tower, or Romanian Palace of the Parliament. Wikimedia Commons can still survive, even if those countries try to be backwards in terms of "breathing space" in public space photography for content creators and netizens.
For your second point, File:Evstafiev-sarajevo-building-burns.jpg is not NC. The CC license used is commercial. Also the burning skyscraper is the main subject and even if the image is meant to inform about the incident (a consequence of war), the building is very prominent that de minimis cannot be invoked here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Could you please clarify to me the last paragraph a bit more? Are you saying the B&H FOP laws do not apply for this image? It is from the en:Siege of Sarajevo which started two months into B&H's declaration of independence which (I highly suspect) is when B&H copyright rules start applying and Yugoslav ones cease(?)
Regarding Wikimedia Commons hosting only free content - I don't know, set up a another Commons-like platform that only Wikimedia can use (with the system I described above)? Don't get me wrong, I support the free-culture movement you keep mentioning, but prefer preservance of images especially when they could be with absolutely no issue be used only on Wikimedia and reused on other NC-complying projects. Regarding backwardness, describing Bosnia and Herzegovina as simply "backwards" is an understatement, their politicians have more tribalistic issues at hand than to care about something like FOP anytime soon. –Vipz (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Vipz: for the image you pointed, B&H law indeed applies but it still shows the building and is bound for non-commercial FOP which Commons cannot accept. Commons cannot accept "for information use only" content. For the other concern, setting up a similar platform for NC content only is itself against the aims of Wikimedia Foundation. WMF's mission, as read [5], is "To empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I forgot where in "Commons:" namespace page is the following statement is found: Wikimedia Foundation explicitly said that Wikimedia Commons can only host free content and must not host NC or fair use content: It's a board resolution that does this (WMF:Resolution:Licensing policy). The resolution bars Commons from establishing an Exemption Doctrine Policy (a policy that would allow non-free works in some cases), and as such requires that content be available under a license that comports with the definition of a free cultural work from Freedom Defined. Non-commercial restrictions are prohibited by that definition, so Commons cannot host NC works. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk ah that's it. Thanks for citing it here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Vipz: I think a lot of us feel outright commercial Wikipedia mirrors are an unfortunate phenomenon, but forks that do something more with the material are welcome. Not much of that in English, but there have been some things in other languages, including Spanish. Also, the ability for people to reprint an article, or to use a photo in a book is certainly a plus. Earlier on, there were quite a few inexpensive but not free CDs or DVDs of Wikipedia material, but that format is no longer so important, with the ubiquity of the Internet. Also, undoubtedly, more people release their pictures without an "NC" requirement simply because it is the only way to get them in here, so we do end up encouraging more truly free content to be created this way. - Jmabel ! talk 14:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  • I've built many commercial partial mirrors of Wikipedia. If I'm deploying MediaWiki to a business intranet (either purely in-house, or one that becomes a resource for its customers) I will set up many pages about their products, working practices etc. but it's also necessary to explain the simple nuts and bolts of their business. In a huge number of cases, this can be done by importing Wikipedia content rather than having to write it for the business. Not having to worry about any -nc- restrictions is valuable there. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Andy Dingley: do you exclude fair use images (those uploaded on individual projects) from those mirrors? –Vipz (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • That would be up to the site operator (in theory – no-one has ever raised licensing, it's not something that businesses ever look at in time or appropriately!). Potentially fair use applies to a business as much as to Wikipedia (albeit not in the UK, where I'm based). But my own practice is to exclude them (it's not hard to do this, just pull the images from Commons, not Wikipedia). As I'm importing articles on pretty generic topics, these aren't the ones that are having to rely on fair use, or where Wikipedia is justifying fair use. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Andy Dingley: Alright, but when pulling images from Commons, don't you have to check each filepage anyway in order to appropriately attribute files that require attribution? I hope I'm not bothering with questions, I'm trying to understand. –Vipz (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Not necessary with MediaWiki. Just like the Wikipedias do, you can set your local wiki so that images can be pulled automatically from another wiki (i.e. Commons) if they're not uploaded locally. The page description comes across too, along with the licence and attribution. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Is Canva clip art freely licensed?

There are a number of diagrams and infographics being uploaded which were created with w:Canva, which offers a library of clipart to users. (Some examples are in Category:Made using Canva; there are a lot more which aren't categorized.)

What is the copyright status of this clip art? Can it be used freely in CC content? The license I found on their web site implies that there are some restrictions on reuse; in particular, I'm concerned by the statements that We can’t guarantee that any free images, music and video files have the appropriate releases for commercial use and Don’t redistribute or sell the photos, music or video on other stock media platforms.

Omphalographer (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Canva uses images from Pexels.com, which has similar issues. Nosferattus (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
In part. Some of the clip art is from Pexels, some is from Pixabay (similar license, same issues), and some might have been created in-house or sourced elsewhere. Either way, what I guess I'm getting at is: what does this all imply for content on Commons created with Canva? Omphalographer (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I imagine that use of canva clip art in files created on Commons could create problems—if that clip art is above the relevant threshold of originality. For simple shapes, that shouldn't be an issue, but more complex canva clip art and stock photos may be a bit of a problem. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

CQ/Roll Call public domain work

I'm looking at the Library of Congress's website, which states Per the deed of gift, The Economist Group dedicated to the public all rights it held for the photographs in this collection upon its donation to the Library. The majority of the photographs in this collection were made by Congressional Quarterly (CQ) and Roll Call staff photographers. There are no known copyright restrictions on photographs by CQ Roll Call staff photographers. This appears valid for all photographs specifically held in that collection, but CQ Roll Call was sold to FiscalNote in 2018, so I can't imagine that these permissions were forward-looking or otherwise granted in perpetuity for all works created by CQ Roll Call photographers.

Does anybody have an idea what the cutoff date might be? I'm looking at some fairly recent photographs (i.e. photos taken this year) that were uploaded to Commons citing that LoC page, but I'm unsure if it applies to photographs made after the sale of CQ Roll Call to FiscalNote (or it is only a set of photographs from before some other specific date). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Two overwrites on one DR

Can someone review and close this DR here.

The uploader has overwritten this file two times. The last overwrite was six days after my last comment. There was no reply to my comments- just a new overwrite. What remains is COM:OOS.

Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Is PD-Canada tag up-to-date

Is this tag up-to-date, since the recent changes to Canadian copyright law?

A different Canada tag has a warning that it is out of date. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, see [6]. --Rosenzweig τ 12:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig - So, #1 of this PD-Canada tag= "Crown copyright is a type of copyright protection. It subsists in works of the governments of some Commonwealth realms and provides special copyright rules for the Crown, i.e. government departments and (generally) state entities."
So, for #2 and #3 on the tag here:
"it was not subject to Crown copyright, and
2. it is a photograph that was created prior to January 1, 1949, or
3. the creator died prior to January 1, 1972."
This is any non-governmental works and any photo CREATED from Canada prior to 1949 is OK on Commons.
A. What about Canadian magazines or newspapers that have text (with no author given),
B. Canadian magazines or newspapers that have advertisements?
C. Canadian magazines or newspapers that have photographs?
D. What about books published in Canada with named authors?
-- Ooligan (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
There is Commons:Canada for an overview. The general rule (that applies to A, B, C, and D) is 70 years pma since late last year, before that it was 50 years pma. The change was not retroactive, so anything by named authors who died before 1972 is in the public domain. There are some exceptions like Crown Copyright and pre-1949 photographs. The terms for anonymous works were extended a few years back, that's the tag that needs to be updated I think. --Rosenzweig τ 15:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Template talk:PD-Canada-anon#Mise à jour says that the tag {{PD-Canada-anon}} was updated in 2021. And indeed it was, see [7]. --Rosenzweig τ 15:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ooligan: As mentioned previously, some language versions of Template:PD-Canada had to be updated. Since then, more language versions are now updated. Some language versions still need to be updated. Feel free to help if you know users who speak the languages.
When you say "a different Canada tag has a warning that it is out of date", I'm guessing you mean Template:PD-Canada-anon. The erroneous warning was placed there a few months ago by a user who strangely seemed to believe that he was the first user to realise that the law had changed. But actually the template had already been updated two years ago, after the law changed. I replied to the user on the discussion page. I did not revert his warning, expecting that he would revert it himself or that he would tell if he believed something still needed to be done. However, it turns out he just left it there and he did not comment further. The warning should not be there. You can just revert it. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I have removed that warning. --Rosenzweig τ 15:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@Asclepias, @Rosenzweig - Thank you both for your prompt and thorough responses. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

About the handling of images obtained permission by e-mail.

I posted an image "Basisbibel Banderole.jpg" to Wikimedia Commons the other day. I inquired in advance by e-mail to the German Bible Society, which holds the copyright, whether I could post it on Wikimedia Commons, and obtained permission from the German Bible Society. However, I received a message with the subject "This media may be deleted." I think there was an error when I posted, but I don't know how to fix it so that the post remains. Who are you? I really want you to fix it for me. I am copying the e-mail I received for reference.

Von: "Bigl, Sven" <Bigl@dbg.de> 件名: AW: Ich werde dich fragen. Gesendet: Dienstag, 20. Juni 2023 00:29 An:

Sehr geehrter Herr Aizawa,

vielen Dank für Ihre Anfrage und Ihr Engagement für die BasisBibel! Die Bilder, die sie auf der Seite „Informationen und Materialien zur BasisBibel“ herunterladen können, dürfen Sie gern für Ihren Beitrag verwenden.

Herzlichen Grüße Sven Bigl

Sven Bigl, M.A. Leiter Öffentlichkeitsarbeit | Head of Public Relations

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft | Balinger Str. 31 A | 70567 Stuttgart | www.die-bibel.de Die Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft ist eine kirchliche Stiftung öffentlichen Rechts. Vorstand: Generalsekretär Dr. Christoph Rösel | Spenden sind steuerlich abzugsfähig.

Von: Gesendet: Montag, 19. Juni 2023 06:15 An: Bigl, Sven <Bigl@dbg.de> Betreff: Ich werde dich fragen.

+++ ! Externe E-Mail +++ Es handelt sich um eine automatische Übersetzung. Verzeihung. Mein Name ist AIZAWA und ich bin Japaner. Ich schreibe einen Artikel über Basisbibel in der japanischen Version von Wikipedia. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%90%E3%82%B7%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B9%E3%83%93%E3%83%BC%E3%83%99%E3%83%AB In diesem Artikel möchte ich das auf Ihrer Webseite „Informationen und Materialien zur BasisBibel“ veröffentlichte Foto verwenden. Darf ich um Ihre Erlaubnis bitten? Wir freuen uns auf Ihre Antwort. Aizawa1 (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Aizawa1: The main problem is that you requested a permission restricted to a particular use by yourself. Commons requires a free license. Please see the page Commons:VRT, in particular the section "If you are NOT the copyright holder". -- Asclepias (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@Asclepias: thanks for your advice. I asked the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. -- Aizawa1 (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
just to make sure: did you aim them at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/de and permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? - Jmabel ! talk 14:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: yes. I did. - Aizawa1 (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Louvre's photo of a Sumerian inscription

Are we allowed to upload a photo made by the museum to Commons? [8] The inscription of course was made 4500 years ago, not sure if it should be considered a 2D or 3D object. The question is whether it's more similar to a tapestry or stained glass (both okay) or to a coin (not okay). Alaexis (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a photo of a stone, which is a 3D object. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Clearly a 3D object. Yann (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Will need to go to Paris to take a photo myself :) Alaexis (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Fanta

Hi

After deletion request we should determine what files from Category:Fanta should be deleted. Panam2014 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing there looks even close to the issues in File:Fanta Jelly! (4141577103).jpg, though a couple might present problems. - Jmabel ! talk 03:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Question about ESA Photo

This photo of Rotterdam by ESA is CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. Here it says "Effective 15 October 2018 this is no longer an option for media like photos and video." Can we still use this photo on Commons? -Artanisen (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

A NC license as sole license was never an accepted option. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. I asked it here as a double check. -Artanisen (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

File:GNOME 2.0 on Red Hat Linux 8.0.png

File:GNOME 2.0 on Red Hat Linux 8.0.png, uploaded by new user Ustanovka shindows is rather close on one side or the other to the threshold of originality. I couldn't confidently advise them whether it is OK or not. Could someone else please offer an opinion? - Jmabel ! talk 03:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Isn't GNOME 2.0 released under GPL-2.0-only (see Wikipedia) so can't you just add {{free screenshot|GPLv2 only}}? Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 14:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, but certainly means it is mis-licensed at present. - Jmabel ! talk 16:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I've changed the licence to be more accurate and I've tweaked some of the categories, should be good now. Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 18:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Appropriate Licensing for Photo

Hi; I received a permissions check on this file I uploaded: File:Robert_E._Pollack,_1982.jpg. I based my upload based on the following catalogue entry: https://clio.columbia.edu/catalog/12981092, which states under the "Access and Use" section that this media has a: "Digital version available with no restrictions." I'd appreciate an extra opinion on whether this is appropriate for Wikimedia Commons before I start using it. Thank you very much! MakeTheBrainHappy (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

MakeTheBrainHappy: On the page 3 of the issue it attributes the photo to Arnold Browne and there is also a clear copyright notice on the side bar, so your author attribution is not correct. Therefore I doubt this image is freely licenced for our use. The catalogue statement concerning access and use is not a clear statement that the image being is licenced by the photographer under the licence you added. What is written on the inside title page is likely what applies to that issue and all the issues I looked at specifically attribute the photographer and have a copyright notice. Ww2censor (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your help! I also found an additional page on Columbia Libraries, which indicates that the archives may also be licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 License, which I believe is not sufficient for Wikimedia Commons: https://copyright.columbia.edu/. Given this, I've sent an email to the necessary stakeholders to see if I can either clarify the license or get permission. Thank you again. MakeTheBrainHappy (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm usually far more active on Wikipedia, so apologies if I do this wrong or am reporting this in the wrong place. I was reading and editing the article Vigor (video game) when I came across several unusually large images used as key art for the game. They were notably not uploaded as under Fair use, or even categorized; rather, their uploader, Vigorthegame, uploaded all of them as a self-published work under CC-BY-SA-4.0. As far as I can tell, these were uploaded here and not Wikipedia, so I'm asking about it here.

The files are:

I find it extremely likely that these are copyright violations, as these are clearly not shots some random Wikimedia user made themselves to throw into a Wikipedia article that just happens to be about the game they're named after, but I also doubt Bohemia Interactive would pull such a stunt as this. What happens next? AdoTang (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a copyvio given their username, but requires COM:VRT verification. I've tagged them as "no permission". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
FWIW username here doesn't mean anything. It could be a fan. Yann (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Either they will or won't comply with the VRT request. - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

If anyone could help me out with this deletion request, I’d be really thankful. Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

How to upload an image posted on Telegram

I uploaded an image taken from a video which was first publicly uploaded on Prigozhin (head od Wagner group) Telegram channel, and also used by many newspapers and news agencies. I named it "prigozhin_announces_bakhmut_conquered" and referred to the Telegram channel in question when asked. Why was it taken down anyway? The video was public and I think it had no license at all. Are there any guidelines I should follow? How to act with Telegram media content? LordAvvbert (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikimedia Commons!
Videos produced in the Russian Federation are copyrighted upon the moment of their publication; there is no need to register it for the copyright to be effective. Sometimes, these images can be used by newspapers and news agencies without a license under claims of "fair use", but Wikimedia Commons cannot accept fair use images. Some Wikimedia projects (such as the English Wikipedia and the Russian Wikipedia) do allow for people to upload fair use images, while others (such as the Spanish Wikipedia) do not.
Please let me know if you have any further questions. I hope this helps to clarify things.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Since I am Italian, I had added the picture to Italian Wikipedia. How can I know if in Italian Wikipedia "fair use" is allowed, and if it is, how do I upload an image only to that wiki without incurring in such copyright issues?
Plus, the video was recorded in Bakhmut, which is, to all international authorities, Ukrainian, and not Russian, territory.
Essentially, in order to upload that image do I need to do something else/something more or can't I at all? LordAvvbert (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
So, uploading to Wikimedia Commons is not possible, regardless of whether the image is considered first published on Ukrainian or on Russian territory, or elsewhere.
What itwiki do with the file you uploaded there will be up to them rather than us at Wikimedia Commons; their fair use policy can be found here: it:Wikipedia:File non liberi Felix QW (talk) 10:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
On some Wikipedias there is a redirect from Wikipedia:EDP (the English acronym), in the Italian case it:Wikipedia:EDP → it:Wikipedia:File non liberi. Read and judge whether the file is allowed. it:Special:Upload is privileged at a basic level, but your Utenti autoconvalidati should be enough.
The "country of origin" in the copyright legislation refers to the country of first publication, so it would probably be Russia. However, Commons is bound only by US law, so we could choose to apply some other law as "local".
–LPfi (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • (cross-posted) @LordAvvbert: since the U.S. abolished its requirement to register copyrights (effective 1 March 1989), in every significant country in the world, copyrightable work is copyrighted by default. (There might be some obscure exception, so I don't venture to say "in every single country in the world," though it wouldn't surprise me.) So: "no license at all" means the work is copyrighted and no license is available, so we can't use it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Status of currency in San Marino

Hi, so I just saw this file and I was wondering whether Sammarinise currency is free. {{PD-San MarinoGov}} says the reproduction, even in their entirety, of the acts of State or government or judicial acts [] is free to use, but it is unclear whether it extends to currency. Matr1x-101 {user - talk? - useless contributions} 17:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Currency is certainly not an "act". - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Not by that wording. "Acts of State or government" means the country's laws. "Judicial acts" means court rulings. Neither of those phrases would release other government works into the public domain, like the appearance of their currency. Omphalographer (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
What counts is of course the Italian wording and the reading of it by Italian lawyers. However "atti dello Stato o delle ..." seems very much restricted to these kinds of documents. –LPfi (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sign

Hey, a long time ago, I uploaded a bunch of pictures, and this particular picture: File:East Campus IMG 20141011 104554.jpg is of a sign in China telling people to be quiet during a test. The test name is at the top of the sign. How can I determine if this is copyrighted? Please ping me. Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Ayo Ayoola Amale Profile Pictue 2.jpg seems a snap for the IWD picture here which has a named photographer claimed on it. I'd normally nominae for deletion here but it is possible/probably the IWD image is later. Any thoughts? -- DeirgeDel tac 07:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hard to guess.
  • Suspicious:
    • User has only two uploads, both photos of the same person, this one a much better photo than the other.
  • But on the other hand
    • Has EXIF data suggesting it is quite an old photo (2006), and uploader dated it accurately based on that EXIF data (not typical for "I found it on the Internet" case).
    • Uploaded 8 years ago, and we don't even know if the IWD site is that old.
  • Neutral:
    • No particular reason to presume the Commons user cannot be the same person as the IWD-credited photographer.
You might want to contact IWD. There is contact info on their site.
Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: : I smiled when you said want. I have tried the following:


Copyright discrepancy between file uploaded several years ago to Wikimedia commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ayo_Ayoola_Amale_Profile_Pictue_2.jpg and released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 and the picture here: https://www.internationalwomensday.com/Speaker/992/Ayo-Ayoola-Amale on your site which is claiming copyright.  See also the discussion here:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=777737564#Copyright_issue_on_image_on_IWD2023_speaker?


If IWD have taken the image from Wikimedia Commons then it should be attributed by IWD as for example:  Juliancofie, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons . If the person you credited with the copyright was the original photographer and never released the copyright on commons then I would look to consider removing the image from Wikimedia commons (and associated articles where it was used).


Thankyou.


DeirgeDel (My Wikimedia Username)




... unsure what will be made of it ... -- DeirgeDel tac 17:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


Imes ES


Hi

Could we consider File:Imes ES.png free? The photo is from a YT channel (who have also FB and IG channel with lots of followers). But the video is extracted from a song from Imes ES channel which is not free. Panam2014 (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)



The video on the non-official account is extracted and cropped from the non-free video on the official account? If so, it looks like copyvio.  -- Asclepias (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


Marked for copyvio.  -- Asclepias (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)


Is this book jacket copyrighted material?


The book jacket of the first Italian edition of Il conformista, which can be seen here, consists of a conventional arrangement of plain text in unremarkable typefaces stating the name of the author, the book title, and the publisher, placed on a section of Renoir's portrait of Charles and Georges Durand-Ruel. Reproductions of Renoir's paintings are free of copyright restrictions, and so is the cropping used and the text on the jacket per se. Is it justified to conclude that the whole work is free of copyright, so that it can be transwiki'd from the English Wikipedia to the Commons?  --Lambiam 15:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)




File:Greta Thunberg urges MEPs to show climate leadership (1683).jpg


File:Greta Thunberg urges MEPs to show climate leadership (1683).jpg has been imported from Flickr as cc-by-2.0. However the page on Flickr says: "This photo is free to use under Creative Commons license CC-BY-4.0 and must be credited: "CC-BY-4.0:  © European Union 2020 – Source: EP". (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)". Before I create a DR with COPYVIO rationale, i take it here. ping user:Ukglo user:Udehb-WMF C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)



If I remember this correctly, the two licenses are one-way compatible, implying that we are more okay to relicense a CC-BY-2.0 work as CC-BY-4.0 than vice versa. In any case, I would always go for what is written in coherent text over the Flickr default. So if it were me, I would relicense it as CC-BY-4.0 and keep it. Felix QW (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

And don't forget to add the attribution mentioned above. Ww2censor (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

And to remove most of the text, which is not freely licensed. And to request a human license review.  -- Asclepias (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

License review, and necessary attribution ✓ Done. Abzeronow (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


Ukrainian Military photos


I just stumbled across Category:PD UA Military, which contains dozens of photographs uploaded with {{PD-UAexMilitary}} despite that tag - and the underlying legal text - being explicitly limited to "signs and symbols" rather than photographs. Am I missing something, or should these be nominated for deletion? Felix QW (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)



Yes - all for deletion.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Ukraine#Copyright_tags


This license is only "for works of a Ukrainian military or Ministry of Defense if it is symbol or sign of government authorities, the Armed Forces of Ukraine and other military formations". Kursant504 (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

+1. Just to add to that at least for the photographs I looked at they come from a Twitter account that doesn't seem to be connected to the Ukrainian government. So PD-UAexMilitary might be the wrong license in some cases anyway. Although as Kursant504 has already pointed out photographs aren't signs or symbols to begin with regardless, but it's at least another reason to delete the images. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Usually ukranian military fotos are going with license ((Mil.gov.ua)), but it is applies only to materials posted on the web-site Mil.gov.ua. As I know, no other socialmedia accounts of any ukr-militaria formations that have free license. Kursant504 (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


What do I do with freely licensed non-PD files that might be public domain?


I found the file File:Yv-logo-520b42083d90211b20f3b49452adbd10.svg, which looks like it is below the threshold of originality of the United States, but is currently licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0. I have a few questions regarding this:



  • 1: Can SVG derivatives have their own copyright?
    • 

  • 2: Should the license of this image be changed to {{PD-textlogo}}?
    • 

  • 3: What do I do when I encounter other files like this one?
    • 

  • 4: Are there any templates for these cases?


Alpha514 (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)



Just go ahead and change it yourself to PD-textlogo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


Agree: it's clearly public domain, it doesn't really matter what license claim someone made.


Occasionally it is worth noting a claim and discussing why it is probably not germane: e.g. let's say this logo was definitely the logo of a known company and had been explicitly given this license by that company. It would probably be worth keeping that, as well as indicating why we believe it is actually in the public domain.  - Jmabel ! talk 03:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)




There were some deletion requests about this issue. For example, in Commons:Deletion requests/File:上海市市标沙船白玉兰.png and in Commons:Deletion requests/File:China Immigration Inspection brand image-nihao.jpg, some users think that {{PD-PRC-exempt}} only covers textual documents. As per COM:PRP, I think there is significant doubt about the freedom of files using {{PD-PRC-exempt}} so I propose that we should reconsider these files' copyright status. Considering that many files will be involved, and some files are frequently used, say, the flag of Hong Kong, I propose here instead of making mass deletion nomination. Teetrition (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)



Ping users who may know Chinese copyright law well @Wcam, Liuxinyu970226, 沈澄心, 廣九直通車, 银色雪莉, Shizhao,  and Njzjz. Sorry if I bothered you. Teetrition (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Comment To begin with my comment, let me quote the part of the Article 5 that is involved:


本法不适用于：
（一）法律、法规，国家机关的决议、决定、命令和其他具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件，及其官方正式译文；
...
Translation:
This law shall not be applicable to:
(1) laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature; and their official translations;
...



The article states 4 distinct types of edicts/documents involved, namely, (1) laws and administrative regulations (法律、法规); (2) resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs (国家机关的决议、决定、命令); and (3) other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature (其他具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件); their previous official translations (其官方正式译文) is also listed, though it is not that relevant here.


As a result, all media files that form part of laws and regulations can be speedily kept under reason (1). Without simultaneously releasing the images into public domain, this defeats the aim of disseminating laws and regulations as far as possible. Examples includes the Hong Kong and Macau flags, both are prescribed in the Hong Kong and Macau Basic Laws. Another example is the Chinese National Emblem, with its format being prescribed in the National Emblem Law.


For reason (2), it's a little bit ambiguous, as the Copyright Law doesn't define "what is state organs", though there's no doubt that all levels of government should be covered. For reason (3), it's basically the standard prescribed for {{PD-EdictGov}}.


In my opinion, the border inspection brand image is clearly ineligible for Article 5 public domain, as it's nothing about the scope of (2) or (3), it it correctly ruled to be copyrightable: you won't use that mascot to justify your have the power to enforce the law, isn't it? For the Shanghai City Emblem, it could be a case of (2), as its standard design is decided by the Municipal People's Congress Standing Committee (s:zh:上海市市标制作使用管理暂行规定, Article 5). However, as reproduction is prohibited (上海市市标制作使用管理暂行规定, Art. 6), it won't pass the free reproduction requirement in COM:L.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment. For the Shanghai City Emblem, I think the regulation (暂行规定) you gave above is just an administrative limitation. Similar provision can also be found at 国徽法 (National Emblem Law), Art. 13, which says The National Emblem and the design thereof shall not be used in: (1) Trademarks, designs for which patent rights are granted, and commercial advertisements. Can we say because the nation emblem should not be used in commercial advertisements, the national emblem cannot pass the Common's requirement? I think this argument also applies for recent hassles on renminbi design. (Announcement by the People's Bank of China, pp. 3-9 for original document or 5-11 for pdf file) Teetrition (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


I do not have objections for the most part. However, regarding the flag of Hong Kong, it is clearly an inseparable part of an exempted official document (File:GB16689-2004.pdf page 6) which I feel might be ok to keep. Wcam (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This document was published in 2004 and in the Basic Law of Hong Kong, which was established in 1990, the flag is also a part of the Law. I do not deny that both the Law and the document are in public domain, but the flag itself can indeed be used separately. So could you please elaborate your argument? Teetrition (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Consider COM:SIG China, signatures can be protected as artworks, but if they are from official documents defined in {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, they can be uploaded to Commons. I think the flag is probably a similar situation. Wcam (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Wcam Actually, this very matter looks like caused by the copyright status of Renminbi which this user populated several ideas to say "Hey, Renminbis are always public domain regareless of periods of releasing", so far I'd love to start another new L2-section below to discuss such matters. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


But what's the difference between the flag of HK and this DR? Teetrition (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Because, is that Shanghai emblem defined by a Mandatory National Standard (强制性国家标准), instead of the Recommended National Standard (推荐性国家标准)? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The Shanghai emblem is defined in a document adopted by People's Congress Standing Committee of Shanghai in 1990. See s:zh:上海市市标制作使用管理暂行规定, Art. 5.


And, is any signature defined by Mandatory National Standard? Teetrition (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

And, is any signature defined by Mandatory National Standard? Absolutely-than-god YES! Per Article 22 of Copyright Law:







“

Article 22 The term of protection of an author’s right of authorship, alteration and  integrity shall be unlimited.

”






Don't say that I didn't tell you to do so. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)



I don't know what are you talking about. I agree that signature is protected by Copyright Law and the term of protection of author's right (著作人身权) is unlimited. But Wcam cited that COM:SIG China said, if they [signatures] are from official documents defined in {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, they can be uploaded to Commons. I think the flag is probably a similar situation. So I'm asking what's difference between Shanghai's emblem and siganatures or flag of HK. Teetrition (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


Crop image with a watermark




Would it be okay for me to crop the image shown here to a close up of one person? To do so would thus exclude the watermark (seen in the bottom left-hand-corner). However, the photo has been uploaded with a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license meaning sharing and remixing is allowed. I'd be using the ⌗ CropTool so the relevant attribution and file information would carry over. Basically, I'm just not sure whether or not cropping the image wherein the watermark would not be present would still be allowed or not. I'd be uploading the crop as a new image, not replacing the original file. Helper201 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)



You must give credit to the author, but it doesn't need to be in the form of a watermark. I'd say: don't worry about the watermark, which in fact should be removed in the Commons version. –LPfi (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


I note that you asked the same question at Commons:Help desk#Crop image with a watermark, where you have got answers. Please, when you ask the same question in several places, at least give a link to the other place, to avoid having the answers repeated by different people. The best practice is to keep the discussion in one place, just linking that thread from elsewhere if necessary. –LPfi (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


why not AI delete watermark? 『白猫shiro neko』Обг. 14:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That might be one way to do it, but if you do, make sure not to get odd effects elsewhere in the photo. But the question here was whether it is OK to crop out a photo that doesn't include it. No AI needed for that. –LPfi (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)




This is about the potential modificaton of COM:CUR China.

Really, I'm crying with my tears to ask about the actual status within this topic.

For several decades, peoples are finding a pair of legal interpretations on how Renminbis are copyrighted or not copyrighted. In not more than 2 years ago, some uses, well-knownly @Teetrition:  claimed that as a part of PBC's announcement, Renminbi designs are also in public domain. This looks like contra with Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/03#Copyright States of China's Bank notes which @Mys 721tx:  said that using picture of RMB on any kind of promotions, publication and other commodities without People's Bank of China's permission is prohibited, I would really love to try gaining our inputs here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)



Need to ping Chinese-speaking administrators and global sysops to focus on it (even though some maybe zh-1/2...): @BrightRaven, Jianhui67, Jusjih, King of Hearts, Minorax, Shizhao, VIGNERON, DannyS712,  and WhitePhosphorus:  --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


Currency is always a complicated topic, because in no country are you literally allowed to do whatever you want with banknote images. But when a government says you can't do this or that with some particular work by that government, it is often unclear whether it is merely a non-copyright restriction or if it is actually making a claim based on copyright law. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it is clearly a non-copyright restriction in this case. For example, one can still use the picture of RMB in the United States as the United States law doesn't prohibit it. Njzjz (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Njzjz By searching cases from the 1st Circuit Court, I'm not sure if this is the true point due to No. 05-2460. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226:  Sorry, but I can't find anything about copyright in this file. Njzjz (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


There are many subitems to be discussed:



Teetrition (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I can say the 2nd answer is  Not OK, gazette is one type of collections of textual documents, so based on the style of gazettes, they can also, at the very least in theory, be copyrighted, as the Article 5 of Copyright Law of PRC doesn't exempt gazettes from protection, if such gazettes are exempted, then we can claim that every version of Three Hundred Tang Poems, Xinhua Dictionary, ...etc are public domain, regareless of the publisher, publishing date, or other lexicographical details. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyway, @Aymatth2:  I guess that we can mention at COM:China (and probably ask WIPO to also mention) that here is the English translation of 2020 Copyright Law. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


I totally agree that gazette is copyrightable somehow because I'm involved in relating discussion in zh.wikisource a few months ago. We just talk about the announcement 2019 No.4 in this gazette. I don't want to discuss any issue on the copyrightablity of the entire gazette. Anyway, I cannot imagine that Xinhua Dictionary will be incorporated in gazette. Teetrition (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)




How likely is it that the mentioned files, on virtue of being scans of a private letter by an author who died before 1953 that were not published until 2015, they are public domain in the United States as per {{PD-US-unpublished}}? Lugamo94 (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)



If still unpublished in 2003, 70 years pma applies in the USA (according to COM:USA), which means they became PD there at latest this year. Peru seems to also apply 70 years pma for unpublished (or recently published) works. Eva Perón (who I assume is the author) seems to have died in 1952, so it is unnecessary to state "before 1953". The "likeliness" is about the likeliness that the assumptions hold true. –LPfi (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've decided to leave it as it is right now just in case it was published before 2003 or before 1978 (both unlikely). Lugamo94 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)


Hathitrust public domain digital images by Google, Inc.


The Congressional Pictorial Directory is a document with photos was published by the U. S. Government (public domain). However, Google, Inc. claims that their "digital images" are for "non-commercial purposes." 

Are photographs from this scanned document allowed on Commons? 

See this document: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951t00116637l&view=1up&seq=10 

Access and Use Policies: https://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd-google 

"Public Domain or Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized: In addition to the terms for works that are in the Public Domain or in the Public Domain in the United States above, the following statement applies: The digital images and OCR of this work were produced by Google, Inc. (indicated by a watermark on each page in the PageTurner). Google requests that the images and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes.

Note: There are no restrictions on use of text transcribed from the images, or paraphrased or translated using the images."

Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)



Google claim is bogus. These are in the public domain, and a faithful reproduction doesn't create a new copyright. Yann (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


Google may simply be being careful about {{Personality rights}}, which are separate from copyright and are sometimes understood as "commercial use".  But there should be no copyright issue, if they are U.S. federal government images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Yann and @Clindberg. So, should I add a link on files I upload from that source, so other can read about this discussion? This may help avoid deletion requests. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, always provide the source of your uploads. Yann (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yann, Sorry I was not clear. I asked if I should include a link to this discussion here in addition to the link to the file's source, which I always include. If a user clicked the source link and read Google's claim (quoted above) they would also see a link to this discussion here. This may prevent a DR or another discussion about this same issue. -- Ooligan (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

No, no need to include this discussion. Yann (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)




I want to upload the front cover for the 1978 novel The Stand by Stephen King. The dust jacket (see here [9]) has a copyright notice, but it is only for the photo: "PHOTO BY © LAWRENCE ROBINS 1978". There are no other copyright notices on the jacket.

If the jacket was published before 1978, then the cover art would certainly be public domain for the same reasons that apply to File:Jaws 1st edition 1975.jpg, which the US Copyright Office says is public domain (see here [10]). The jacket is not a collective work/periodical such that one copyright notice covers all individual works, including the cover art. The name of the claimant "Lawrence Robins" is not the name of the proprietor of the cover art, and is not a licensee or an assignee of the cover art. But since this is post-1977, I'm not sure whether the cover art is public domain or not, and whether it's OK to upload the entire dust jacket, but with the photo blurred. FunnyMath (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)



I would say the cover is copyrighted for a number of reasons. First, as of 1 Jan 1978, notice was not required. The Copyright Office's determination hinged on the date of publication being before 1978.


A substantial portion of the jacket includes text by Stephen King. The copyright notice in the book would cover that taxt. The CO's determination about the Jaws cover discussed that the cover was unrelated to Benchley. That is not the case for The Stand's cover.


Reading the cover also informs us that the cover art was drawn by John Cayea. Although that announcement lacks "copyright", "copyr.", or "&copy", a pre-1978 court interpretation may forgive that omission. But we are looking at 1978.


There is also the possibility of a copyright notice within the book. The CO's determination included that the only notice within the book was for Benchley.


The photograph is still under copyright.


The cover is still under copyright.


Glrx (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice was required until March 1, 1989 (see {{PD-US-1978-89}}.  But, it was more possible to avoid losing copyright -- if the artwork was registered with the Copyright Office within five years, that was one of the steps.  I only see one registration mentioning a John Cayea, and it's not for this work. The text extracts most likely did not lose their copyright though.  The required form of copyright notice did not change much in 1978; some variations were OK but not the lack of the symbol or word or some attempt at it.  s:Copyright Act of 1976#§_401._Notice_of_copyright:_Visually_perceptible_copies was still the law.  But yes, the copyright notice inside the book might matter, depending on who it was credited to (or maybe a separate one existed).  The flaps and back cover almost certainly aren't OK, but the cover alone is a possibility.  If Mr. King hired the cover artist, and owns the copyright as a work for hire or something like that, then even a copyright notice in his name on the book might well suffice for the cover.  If the cover was done by the publishing company without any involvement from Mr. King, and the copyright is to the author and not the publishing company, then there's a chance.  But there could also be a copyright notice inside the book for the cover itself, as well.  There were several factors in that Jaws cover decision, with the lack of separate notice being a big one, but not the only one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I should clarify that the Stephen King book cover is for the dust jacket of a hardcover book, not a softcover book, which was the case with the Jaws book. The US Copyright Office said that even from 1978 to 1989, a copyright notice for the book cannot cover the dust jacket and vice versa. See [11].


2207.1(C) Dust Jackets
A notice of copyright on the dust jacket of a book is not an acceptable notice for the book, because the dust jacket is not permanently attached to the book. Likewise, a notice appearing in a book is not an acceptable notice for the dust jacket or any material appearing on that dust jacket, even if the book refers to the jacket or material appearing on the jacket.



Because of that, I have a feeling that all of the dust jacket minus the photo is OK, even for the text. FunnyMath (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I looked into the question of "error in name" for copyright notices, and it's confusing me. The US Copyright Office Compendium says:


2205.2(I) Error in the Name of the Copyright Owner
When the person named in the notice was authorized by the copyright owner to publish the work, but is not the actual copyright owner, it is considered to be an error in the name. This does not affect the validity or ownership of the copyright.
[...]
17 U.S.C. § 406(a).



However, 17 U.S.C. § 406(a) says (see [12]):


(a) Error in Name.—With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, where the person named in the copyright notice on copies or phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner is not the owner of copyright, the validity and ownership of the copyright are not affected.



The first quote implies that as long as the person named in the notice was authorized by the copyright owner to publish their work, copyright is not lost. However, the second quote implies that any error in name doesn't forfeit copyright. FunnyMath (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to see how an unauthorized publication with a false copyright notice could ever affect validity and ownership of the copyright. Otherwise, anyone could publish something without authority and thereby destroy the copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 15:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The authorization is required, but FunnyMath notes that the paragraph of the law does not require that the name mentioned in the notice be the name of the authorized person.  -- Asclepias (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


The Compendium quote seems to express one possible particular case of the broader notion of the law quote. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I see. In that case, then I think the cover artist has possibly retained his copyright, even though the name of the claimant has nothing to do with the cover art. How strange. FunnyMath (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

What claimant? Robins? It seems clear that his notice is for the photo only, not the rest of the jacket.  -- Asclepias (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I know it's clearly only for the photo. But I'm worried that the cover artist can cite 17 U.S.C. § 406(a) and claim copyright anyways, since it says that the name in the copyright notice doesn't matter as long as the publication was authorized by the copyright owner. Courts tend to try to keep copyright in cases where there are errors in notices. FunnyMath (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


Right, "error in name" never lost copyright.  It may have been an issue at renewal time (irrelevant for this one), as only certain people had the right to renew, but if there was a copyright notice with a name you had someone to contact who could redirect you to the correct copyright owner -- you were clearly notified that the copyright existed.  There is no conflict between the two statements -- if it was an unauthorized publication in the first place, then of course copyright was never lost regardless of any problems with the notice.  One statement makes clear that it applies to authorized publications, the other statement assumes that situation as obvious.  However, the notice on the jacket is pretty clearly just for the photo, and there would need to be a copyright notice to cover the rest.  It is not a collective work notice which applies to all contained works, by its placement.  The reason why the text may not be OK is that the text was registered with the Copyright Office, and therefore gets into the very gray areas of that law to avoid loss of copyright, which {{PD-US-1978-89}} tried to avoid by requiring that the work not be registered at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much Carl for relieving me of my paranoia. I'll upload the dust jacket, but with the photo and text extract removed. FunnyMath (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


Group sepia photograph from The Netherlands taken in 1859


Sorry that I have to ask this, i couldn't determine if this was public domain or otherwise not wanted.

It's a sepia photograph of a group of people, one of whom is the subject of an article.
The photograph was taken in 1859 and has been framed on a piece of paper with flowing handwriting giving information.

It's a high quality scan of the photo.

It is owned by an archive, published in several newspapers, but the digital copies have copyright marks under them, but the photo is from the 19th century and I only wish to use a small part of it.

https://www.tubantia.nl/enschede/hoe-de-zoon-van-een-tot-slaaf-gemaakte-vrouw-burgemeester-werd-in-twente~a9bc3615/232789291/ Bart Terpstra (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)



Hi, Any picture taken in 1859 is out of copyright. The copyright claim by the archive is certainly bogus, as the copyright is owned by the photographer and her/his heirs, not the archive. Yann (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

wonderful! thank you.


If you know where i could check if something meets wikimedias public domain requirements, let me know. Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


The only possibility is if it was previously never communicated to the public, and it's out of the original copyright term, the person who first publishes/communicates to the public gets a 25-year publication right in the EU.  That would be the only chance of a valid claim by an archive, and it's pretty rare.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

What about old photos published between 1928 and 2002? COM:USA seems to tell that they are still under copyright, regardless of when they were created. Of course, in this case, publication in the US is unlikely. –LPfi (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

They would have had to be published with notice, and renewal if before 1965.  And you'd really have to prove the publication date.  The 25-year publication right in the EU would not count for URAA restoration, and it would be near impossible for an anonymous 1859 photo to still be in copyright in the EU in 1996. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

If published between March 1, 1989 and 2002, then no notice would be required. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


This image has since been uploaded here and here. Bart Terpstra (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


Can we consider the Chinese TV series Three-Body a CC BY-SA work?


Recently, I noticed that a bird image licensed under CC BY-SA was used in Mike Evans' ornithology notebook in Three-Body. Does this means that the Three-Body should be considered a derivative work and therefore be licensed under the CC BY-SA license, or at least for the episode or the segment where the image appears?
––Interaccoonale (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)



@Interaccoonale:  short answer: "No".


Long answer: the show as a whole doesn't become a derivative work. If they used the image on the basis of that license and modified the image, then the viral (SA) license follows the modified image. If they licensed it separately (common enough, I've had books, films, etc. do this with my images here well over a dozen times) then the license here is irrelevant. And if they simply used it without a license, the copyright-holder can sue them, but terms of a particular license don't magically apply.


Consider the analogous case: a newspaper uses a photo from Commons under a viral CC license. It doesn't make the whole newspaper available under that license. - Jmabel ! talk 15:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the Creative Commons Share-Alike licenses aren't self-executing — that is to say, the virality isn't automatic. You are required to apply the license to your derivative work, but it is not applied for you. If you make a derivative work (in a way that is not covered by fair use or similar exceptions), and you don't follow the conditions of the license, you have infringed the original copyright — but your work does not become covered by the license as a result. (However, unauthorized derivative works may not be eligible for copyright protection to begin with, depending on the jurisdiction.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Would you happen to know how often the WMF enforces their ownership? Do they have standing? Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The WMF isn't the copyright holder for files posted on Commons (except for those very few actually created by the WMF). In this case, the copyright holder would be Huub Veldhuijzen van Zanten/Naturalis Biodiversity Center. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


Copyright exists first and foremost to protect the interests of rights-holders who want to use it to make money, not to be completely consistent.


Minor infringements usually result in settlements, removal of offending material or takedowns if the person with standing pursues it, if they do nothing, nothing happens. Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


Which CC license do Sr.Pelo's videos fall under?


For example:  Spooky Month has the usual YouTube CC BY 3.0 license tag. In the description it also mentions: "If you want to react to any video, make a youtube poop, remix, put it as a clip in one of your video reviews, or even subtitles for your country, is 100% ok for me, just put the credits in the description" All cool right. Well
in the same description Pelo also states "Please, DO NOT REUPLOAD OR MONETIZE A COMPILATION WITH ANY VIDEO" so that would make it CC BY-NC 3.0? Hyperba21 (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)



I think that legally, you can use the licence (CC BY 3.0), which doesn't have any restrictions for commercial use, and doesn't allow such additional restrictions. However, we should respect the wish that the video not be monetised, by including it in the description (I don't think we are legally required to do so). Note the "please", which implies that the authors understands he cannot make the wish legally binding when at the same time using a free licence. The alternative is to respect his wish by not uploading the videos at all. –LPfi (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


  • Not a valid expression of a CC-by, as you note that's an additional -nc constraint. So we shouldn't host it here. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

    If he has confirmed the applicability of CC BY 3.0 through YouTube, then that is the license he has applied to his work. As noted in the CC license text, the application of the license carries no additional restrictions. The license he applied is CC BY 3.0, not CC BY-NC 3.0. "Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
    • 

  • I would rather pro-LPfi, at least one free license is available, that file can just be accepted by Commons communities, see also Commons:Multi-licensing. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


This is a further constraint applied to all licences (and invalidating those licences), not an additional licence offered. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

As long as it is only a request it doesn't invalidate them – and I think it is rather the constraint that would be invalidated by the licence than the other way round – but we might want to respect the restriction by not uploading them here. –LPfi (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)








Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/06&oldid=783356052"