Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/12

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

1928 image with large watermark

I posted this over at WP:Media Copyright Questions and they suggested I ask here instead.

I would like to add THIS IMAGE to the C&O desk article of the desk being used by the Van Sweringen brothers in 1928. The issue is that while the image should be out of copyright a large watermark appears on the picture by the historic society that uploaded it. Does this watermark make the image unusable? Can I upload it then ask for help removing the watermark? Is it not actually out of copyright because of this watermark? Any help would be appreciated. Found5dollar (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Found5dollar:
  1. It is possible that the watermark is itself copyrighted (though elsewhere we've already considered it below the threshold of originality). You'd have to research that. But, assuming it is not:
  2. Whether it is usable is up to the party that wishes to use it. You can upload it to Commons. Just remember to tag it with {{Watermarked}}.
  3. Yes, you can request help retouching it: Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Without more information about the provenance of this image, we can't assess its copyright status. There are multiple ways in which an archival photo like this from 1928 could still be protected by copyright. Is there any evidence other than its age that leads you to think it's free? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA-4.0-Picture retouched

Hello,

I uploaded a pict, that was a little bit retouched by me: File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X-foreground-bottom-right-retouched.jpg. Could you please double-check, if my data are sufficient (base is File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X.jpg). In the past I could put in the original file and the fotographer with the upload. If something has to be corrected, please change it and let me know. Thank you very much in advance. Best regards Wikisympathisant (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile I found a better Retouched-brick and categories were automatically reduced, now this topic should be ok. So it remains the question about change of the upload-procedure. KR, Wikisympathisant (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Convenience link: File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X-foreground-bottom-right-retouched.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
@Wikisympathisant: looks fine to me. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in uploading self-made SVG versions of the Turkish military insignia to feature in Wikipedia (regiment-level bodies). The issue is that (on the contrary to most countries) the Turkish copyright law does not consider government emblems/works created by pubic servants in public domain. They also don't have licenses on government websites. Therefore, as a Commons newbie, I cannot find any way to legitimately upload such content. Some people I have seen just credited such works for themselves, and claimed they are the sole owners of the work, but I think such an action would not be allowed. Thanks! AscendencyXXIV (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @AscendencyXXIV, unfortunately there is no "trick" that we can apply here, other than hosting any insignia that are below the threshold of originality (TOO). Gnom (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Or old enough to be out of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Note that is a continuation of a discussion at [1]. Please, @AscendencyXXIV, when continuing a conversation in a different, even a more appropriate place, link what has already been discussed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Graffiti in Rome

Hello,
I took several pictures of the building of the Metropoliz in Rome. I know that there is no freedom of panorama in Italy – but at the same time pictures like this one and this one do not seem to have a problem (?)
Here's my question: Can I upload pictures on Commons with CC BY 4.0 of the Metropoliz-building, resembling this one or this one? Meaning: Pictures of the building from the outside with Graffiti on the walls? Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24): I am afraid but the two example photos that are already on Commons would most probably need to be deleted because the graffitis are so prominent in them that they are not permissible under the de minimis principle (in German: de:Beiwerk). What you could do, however, only upload those of your photos where the graffitis are only visible "in the background". We can also help you with this selection if you want. Gnom (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi Gnom, thank you for the helpful answer. Please take a look at these 3 pictures: 1, 2, 3. I uploaded them after asking Raymond for advice. I understood that they should be ok – are they? Regarding the rest of my pictures, I will try to get CC BY 4.0-releases by the artists for them. Wish me luck :-D --Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24), 3 is definitely fine, 1 should be OK as well, but the design in 2 is most probably copyrighted... Gnom (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@Gnom I thought 2 would be old enough but it is based on the motive of File:We Can Do It! NARA 535413 - Restoration 2.jpg. Per above image description it is not copyrighted in the US. But maybe I am on the wrong side? Raymond (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I understand, but I would say that this derivative work of the public domain original is creative enough to be copyrighted in itself. Gnom (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I see, thank you for your review. I am sorry @Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24). Raymond (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
No problem, good to know. Will add this picture to the ones that I will try to get a release by the artists for. Thank you, Raymond and Gnom. Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Images from Croatian Ministry of Defence

Is image published by Croatian MoD is can be considered as public domain? for example these images. It's terms of use states:
Copyright © 2008-2023 Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Croatia.
All rights reserved.
Contents from these pages can be transferred without special permission, with reference to the source. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  • There's a copyright notice, so it's definitely not public domain.
As to whether it's under a sufficiently free license for the Commons, it's uncertain. The license statement allows images to be "transferred", which I take to mean re-published as-is, but it's not certain (to me, anyway), whether modification of the images is permitted, which we require for the Commons. There's an email address on the page, so it would be worth getting in touch with their media team to verify that edits and alterations to the images are permitted. Please forward any response to the VRT ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ) for the record. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Rlandmann: Thank you for your suggestion. I've sent an email to the media team of Croatian MoD as suggested.
I asked here because I've seen other contributors upload images from their website, but the vague terms of use leave me unsure if these are compliant or potential copyvio. I'll forward any response I receive to the VRT for documentation. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

en:File:Mariya_Petrovna_Nesterenko.jpg

Is there a way to keep track of files like this, which will enter the public domain in 2031/2 (author died in 2006)? JayCubby (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@JayCubby: Hi, Died in 2006? So you probably mean that it can be restored in 2077. It can be added in this page. Yann (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd also add to it the Undelete in 2077 category, why did you think it would be restored in 2032? Abzeronow (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The USSR has a copyright term of life + 25 years, though the US has life + 70 years (I may have forgotten about the US aspect...).
A second question:
I don't have a lot of experience with the Hirtle chart, but could it be PD due to formality issues in 2031. JayCubby (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, Russia extended copyright a few times since the USSR, COM:Russia, Russia is now Life + 70 (with a 4 year extension to those who worked during the en:Great Patriotic War (term).) Abzeronow (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! That probably settles the affair then. JayCubby (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
If it was never on Commons, I don't think we usually track that. But, yes, Category:Undelete in 2077 is where we would track that if we do. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Maps from New Zealand

Appreciated community: I need your help.

I'm considering upload to Commons this map and this other map. However, I'm confused about the copyright issues.

While in the pages linked they say about these maps that "No known copyright restrictions", the rules of Commons about intelectual property rules of New Zealand contradict these declarations.

What can I do in regards to these maps? Thanks in advance. Babelia (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a very old map. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
For the first one, the map itself is PD, the images accompanying it are likely also PD, text on the bottom is from 1969. Abzeronow (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
  • This appears to be the 1808/1812 original of the first map by Laurie & Whittle, which in this form is certainly free of copyright. On the modern map, the kangaroo in the bottom right appears to be inspired by George Stubbs' painting but is sufficiently different as to probably be separately copyrightable. Cook's portrait is after Nathaniel Dance-Holland's official portrait of him, probably also sufficiently different as to be separately copyrightable. It's probably a similar story for the various other images that I either can't make out or don't recognise. The text at the bottom of the map is modern and copyrightable, credited to "A. D. McKinlay, M.A.". New Zealand copyright on literary works expires 50 years after the death of the author. An Arthur David McKinlay published books on New Zealand history between 1933 and 1969. Separately, an Arthur David McKinlay born in 1899 obtained an M.A. from a New Zealand university in 1930 and died in New Zealand in 1977, so could well be the same person. If so, the text will be protected by copyright until 2028.
As to the modern images in the map, it was published in 1969, and New Zealand copyright on artistic works expires 50 years after publication (2020) for anonymous works. So the question is, can we identify the artist? A bit of detective work might be necessary to see if there's any record of who they might have been.
The second map is by the New Zealand Department of Land and Surveys, a government department, today Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). New Zealand government works are subject to Crown copyright which lasts for 100 years. Unless the copyright on this specific map has been released, its copyright will expire in 2075. I note that the copy hosted by the National Library of New Zealand says "This image may be used, copied and re-distributed free of charge in any format or media", which is not free enough for Commons because we need to allow commercial, for-profit re-use as well. You could check with LINZ to ask about the copyright status. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Appreciated @Rlandmann:
In regards to the first map, the page I linked says:

What can I do with this item?
Share it - This item is suitable for copying and sharing with others, without further permission.
Modify it - This item is suitable for modifying, remixing and building upon, without further permission.
Use it commercially - This item is suitable for commercial use, without further permission.

As for the second map, the LINZ site says that:

Unless otherwise specified, content produced by Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. In essence you are free to copy, distribute, and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand and abide by the other licence terms.

So, what do you think? Babelia (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
You can contact Auckland Libraries to clarify the copyright of the image in question, some of their images are CC-0 which are listed as 'No known copyright restrictions'. There is a form on the file page to do so. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
@Traumnovelle: I think I can guess what you mean to say, but "No known copyright restrictions" is not CC-0. The only way something becomes CC-0 is for someone who owns the copyright to overtly offer the CC-0 license. Something that aged out of copyright decades ago cannot possible be CC-0. - Jmabel ! talk 06:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I saw an image listed as no known copyright restrictions that was taken recently enough that it couldn't be PD, after emailing the library I was told it was released without copyright (or something to that effect). I can try and see what exactly was said. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @Babelia: The notice on the first map also says that you "You must always check with Auckland Libraries to confirm the specific terms of use" (emphasis added). In this case, I'd be asking them who Hooker and Co. Ltd. are/were and how Auckland Libraries know that copyright has expired or was transferred into the Public Domain (since it appears that at least one author has not been dead long enough).
Auckland Libraries also notes the Islands of the South Pacific map as "No known copyright restrictions", which contradicts what LINZ has to say, so I think we need to be careful about taking the Auckland Libraries website at face value for archival content.
Have you been able to find Islands of the South Pacific on the LINZ website? The map predates Creative Commons licenses by nearly 30 years, so unless it has ever been re-published under this license, or you can find/obtain a statement that LINZ applies this license retroactivally to all material previously published by them and their predecessor organizations, it would still appear to be covered by Crown copyright. Assuming LINZ is prepared to make such a statement, obtaining one and forwarding it to the VRT would be incredibly useful to opening the door to a large amount of New Zealand cartography that could be hosted on the Commons. It would be really great if you could get a definitive answer. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Is File:Flag of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.gif above TOO?

Is File:Flag of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.gif above Threshold of Originality in the United States? The flag features a geometric pattern, but it's a complex one. Its colouring is also complex, with what appears to be shading and small details. I'm leaning to this being above TOO but would like confirmation since I'm uncertain. Intervex (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the design, coloring and shading as well as lettering position make this meet the Threshhold of Originality and therefore copyright applies. It's funny you've picked the two indigenous peoples I'm most familiar with. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 22:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

So this flag is much older than Creative Commons, and the license appears to have picked by user who made the SVG version. I'm not sure it's the right copyright tag for this flag though.

You can read about the flag's history here: [2]. It was first made by Karoniaktajeh Louis Hall in what is considered Canada, but the flag is in protest of Canadian colonialism. It feels inappropriate to try and apply Canadian copyright law to it. (It is recent enough and above Threshold of Originality that by default it would be copyrighted in Canada.)

Hall died in 1993. In his will, Hall left the original paintings to the Warrior Society in Kahnawake (see link above). Kahente Horn-Miller from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake has gone on record saying [3]:

"This image may officially belong to the Men’s Society of Kahnawá:ke but it is meant for everyone to use. If someone sells a t-shirt or a pin with the image on it, so be it. If someone uses aspects of it to communicate their own message, so be it. Copyright and exclusion are the antithesis to this flag’s meaning. Karoniaktajeh would be happy to see that the message of unity is spreading further, as he intended it to."

I'm not sure what copyright tag would be most suitable for this flag. It certainly seems intended to have a free license, but I can't find any writing online from Hall that spells out any terms of use. Creative commons seems anachronistic. Suggestions? Intervex (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  • The various CC licenses are specific in nature, and so only the person who owns the copyright to a work can place it under these licences. That is, even if a copyright holder specifies terms that overlap completely with CC-BY (for example), it's not actually CC-BY unless the copyright holder says it is.
The questions, as I see them are:
  • is Dr Horn-Miller empowered under either Canadian or tribal law to make this statement on behalf of the Men's Society of Kahnawá:ke?
  • The statement as supplied says that free re-use without further permission is OK, does not ask for attribution, and specifically allows commercial use, but it's not clear to me whether derivative works are allowed. Are they? (Keeping in mind that permitting such use would also permit disrespectful or disparaging use)
I would start by contacting Dr Horn-Miller for advice, and the question might ultimately be one for the Men's Society of Kahnawá:ke directly.
Assuming there really are no restrictions on use, then {{PD-because}} is probably the best fit we have, together with an explanation of the rationale. I'd also forward all correspondence to the VRT to keep on file. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
I would think that "uses aspects of it to communicate their own message" could be sufficient for allowing for derivative works, if this is a valid granting of license in the first place, especially with the final phrase that supports a reading that releases the flag into the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
"Copyright and exclusion are the antithesis to this flag’s meaning" sounds like about as explicit a public domain dedication as there can be. This is an explicit renunciation of copyright. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • In isolation, I agree. Against that, the first sentence sounds like a statement of ownership and license to use, so I'd like to be more certain about what exactly is intended here. The two parts of the statement seem contradictory to me (acknowledging also that this might be a difficulty of trying to model a system of law with a different and perhaps incompatible one). --Rlandmann (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament, 10th term

There are 662 files in Category:Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament of the 10th parliamentary term, seemingly all uploaded by User:Jcornelius @Jcornelius: .

They are all drawn from https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/

Webpages such as https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/photo/irish-meps-official-portraits-10th-parliamentary-term_20240617_MULLOOLY_Ciaran_IE_009 indicate that only an attribution is required for these images to be used by the public.

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

This very, very unfortunate line of text suggests the images on www.europarl.europa.eu may be under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives license.

Which view is correct? Are these files under a useable Attribution license, or are they under a Attribution-NoDerivatives license?

Does EU law supersede the legal notice at https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/?

I would love for it to be the case that these files are usable but I myself was previously told they are not. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  • The general legal notice with its ND term explicitly says that it is "a general rule". And even if it didn't, for any given page or piece of content, I would always privilege its own specific notice over a more general notice. Consider the alternative: if the general rule says that generally re-use is OK, but we found a piece of content marked "all rights reserved", we would not think that the general rule covered it.
In this case, I think the image you've linked and any like it are attribution only. As usual though, if in doubt, I recommend contacting the copyright holder or publisher for clarification. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
To be precise, they're not under a Creative Commons license either way. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Is the Navajo Flag copyrighted?

We have many copies of the Navajo flag on Commons. It's from 1968. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States it is possible this flag is copyrighted *if* it was published with notice that it was copyrighted. I searched https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/ for "Navajo flag" and got a few hits [4] [5] [6] but none of them appear to be from the Navajo Nation. Does anybody have any evidence one way or the other whether the flag is copyrighted? Intervex (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would have been very difficult to retain a copyright for a flag in the U.S. in that era. Each actual flag would be a copy without copyright notice, no? The flag does not contain a copyright symbol. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm still new to US copyright law. So does this mean a flag in the US from that era would have to have the actual copyright symbol embedded in the flag? I thought a notice meant a text notice that would accompany the image. Intervex (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
It would presumably have sufficed always to distribute copies of the flag with a notice, but who ever did that? @Clindberg: do you think I'm wrong about this, and if I am wrong, how would it have worked? - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
There had to be a visibly perceptible notice on all distributed copies (or the vast majority). For something permanently placed like a statue, it could be on a marker or pedestal nearby. But even a copyright notice on a book's dust cover was not sufficient to cover the book, since it was removable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's intense. Well, that gets me on board with "probably fair to assume it's PD". Intervex (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Agreed that it would have been difficult. There are a couple of different ways that this could have worked, though. As Jmabel says, probably the most obvious is if all authorized distribution had been via one or a small number of authorized distributors for the flag, who could have ensured that a copyright notice was printed on each authorized copy distributed (this could have been a small notice in an unobtrusive place; see for example many mass-produced toys that have small copyright notices printed on or molded into them).
Or, if all authorized, officially printed and distributed versions of the flag carried copyright notices, my understanding is that the distribution of unauthorized copies without copyright notices would not have voided the artist's copyright (although the distribution of significant numbers of authorized copies without notices probably would have). My understanding is that copyright holders were not obliged to defend their works against unauthorized use in order to maintain their copyrights, in the way that trademark holders are so obliged. @Clindberg: , I'd love to hear your thoughts on this hypothetical scenario.
And, in saying all that, these are very specific hypothetical scenarios, and I don't think we need to worry about them without any further evidence that something like this had been the case. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
The law did allow for a small fraction of copies to be accidentally distributed without notice -- but I think court cases for those have been between 1 and 2 percent of all copies for cases which kept copyright. The Copyright Compendium First edition (see links on this page), particularly section 4.1.2 but all of part 4 is about notices) did mention that if the first edition had no notice, even if a relative few copies, copyright would still be lost. Unauthorized copies would not lose copyright, correct. Copyright owners can selectively sue -- the lack of suing one infringer does not help a second infringer, to the best of my knowledge. In this case, a seal graphic appears to actually be part of the law[7] -- that much may also be PD-EdictGov. Unsure what the law said about the flag, whether it was a general written design (anyone could make independently copyrightable drawings based on that), or if an actual graphic was part of the law. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC) Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you -- I'm especially grateful for your check of my understanding around the effect (or lack thereof) of unauthorized copies. So, it seems not quite so difficult for a flag to have kept its copyright pre-1978, at least in theory. (Not that we have any reason to think that anything of the sort happened in this case.) It does make me wonder about the channels through which copies of the flag were manufactured and distributed early on though.
Interesting too that the seal in the Code bears only the most passing resemblance to the seals in the various versions of the flag. --Rlandmann (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Spinoff project for logos

Currently Commons hosts some logos and Wikipedia some others, normally based on copyright status.

Many logos are registered as trademarks and as such published in relevant publications.

Would there be a potential to create a spin-off project for logos to describe and sort them on a fair use basis? When needed, Wikipedia could use them directly.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Enhancing999, please note that you need to distinguish between copyright and trademark protection, which are very different from each other. Because trademark law does not affect Commons, anything that is protected as a trademark can still be hosted on Commons without any problems. However, we need to respect copyright law, and many logos are protected not only as trademarks, but also as works protected by copyright. Gnom (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
What problem is this meant to solve? It is rarely difficult to find an online copy of a Wikipedia-notable logo. For those Wikipedias that allow fair use, someone should easily be able to find and upload any given "fair-use" logo when needed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
There are dozens of projects that need to upload it separately, plus there isn't really an advantage of uploading the few that can go here.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
If there were to be a spinoff project to allow sharing of fair use images across WMF sister projects, I can't think of any reason to make it specific to logos. However, I believe any online repository of unfree material would probably go against WMF policy. As mentioned at meta:Non-free content, Commons is the one sister project that is explicitly forbidden even to set up an "Exemption Doctrine Policy," a policy on conditions under which we would accept non-free content. That is clearly because WMF didn't want to get in the position of hosting non-free media. It's been a couple of decades, and imaginably WMF could be interested in changing their stance on this, but why would logos be a special case in contradistinction to any other non-free media used by multiple sister projects? - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
The idea is a spin-off project. I agree this wouldn't fit at Commons, thus the suggestion to start with.
It's possible that the approach is useful for other fields (other projects), but any such project would need a clear scope.
The question here is if this could work out copyright-wise.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Maybe there's a big existing problem that I'm not seeing and that this would address, but given that:
  • the WMF's position on fair use is predicated on whether an image is actually being used on a WMF project; the image can't just live unused in a repository
  • the conditions (and therefore rationale) under which a non-free image can be used on a WMF project vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction
  • various WMF projects are able to host their own non-free content in jurisdictions where it is possible for them to do so, and each must host a rationale for how and why the image qualifies for fair use in their own jurisdiction for each time it is used in that project
  • such a project would need a corps of volunteers to oversee the repository, whereas in the current status quo, volunteers from each project look after their own fair-use images based on their own local knowledge, experience, and linguistic ability
"Could work out?" Sure. Very many things are possible if someone is committed to throwing enough time and money at them! But I think that a Commons-like repository to host images that might or might not be fair use in one jurisdiction or another seems like a very expensive solution for very little benefit over the way things work right now. Maybe ask yourself what actual problem this would solve, and go from there. I don't think there are big economies of scale to be found here. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV.webm

I don't want to upload a copyvio. Just making sure that CCTV footage is OK in New York, people over at the associated talk page are citing intellectual property as a reason this isn't ok. JayCubby (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Being CCTV has no bearing -- the question is if there is at least a bit of creativity in the resulting expression. It is possible that someone positioning that camera may have done enough for a copyright, unless the positioning was obvious. This video has a U.S. copyright registration, for one example. I don't think there is clear case law either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
There seem to be more and more of this type of image uploaded either to Commons or locally to English Wikipedia under a {{PD-automated}} license in recent years, but I'm not sure whether there's been sufficient US case law to make this clear beyond a shadow of doubt despite Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-automated. For the moment, though, Commons seems to be OK with this. I guess in this case it would depend as to whether there was any human input involved in setting up the camera to create this footage. One thing to remember, though, is that whether Commons can host and image and how that image is ultimately used by English Wikipedia or any other WMF project are essentially two different questions. The first question can be resolved here on Commons, but the other question probably needs to be discussed locally on the project where the image is intended to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
There is input, I suppose, in setting up a camera so as to capture a specific area, but my sense is that such authorship doesn't really constitute originality (never mind the fact that the people who set up a CCTV cam probably aren't the camera owners). We'll see I guess. JayCubby (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
The clip being used here contains original work by the New York Times (their graphic at the beginning of video)
The clip being used here uses the same but from the New York Post.
If either of these publications reproduced the CCTV video obtained by the opposing publication, they would absolutely be the subject of a lawsuit which they'd probably lose. I don't think we should be reproducing the work of either of these publications. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Please link to the clips, not Wikipedia pages they were once used on. I only see the New York Post one, which is on Commons: File:Shooting of Brian Thompson CCTV (NY Post).webm. I don't see much likelihood that either publication would sue; the Post copyright would be pretty thin, and it wouldn't look good on Times to use the work of the Post. Commons:PD-Art has long set the precedence that we use public domain works from other publications. It would be good to remove the added material, but legally, the Post logo is PD-text, so that's not the big copyright concern.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

COM:TOO UK after the THJ v Sheridan decision

Sheridan replaced the old "skill and labour" test (which was applied in Future and Ladbroke, both of which are currently cited on COM:TOO UK) with the new, "more demanding", "author’s own intellectual creation" test. This seems to have a broader reach than just digital reproductions of 2D images, and likely, in my view, means that the threshold of originality in the UK is now much closer to that of the US. But this doesn't seem to have been discussed much, so I don't want to make any drastic changes quite yet. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

I should note that this came up in a DR. (Cc. @DeFacto) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: You're right, but the question is whether the UK courts will continue to apply the new threshold after Brexit because the reason for the change was EU legislation... Gnom (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
There is no question about this. THJ is a post-Brexit decision and explicitly says this threshold is incorporated into British law post-Brexit as part of the EU acquis. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you – but you never know. Gnom (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
The whole idea of a precedential legal system is that you are supposed to know, though. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Courts can be inconsistent sometimes too. My lingering doubt is more that the Sheridan case was about something that occurred when EU law was binding within the UK. The ruling does say Section 1(1)(a) of the 1988 Act must, so far as possible, be interpreted in accordance with Article 2(a) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society ("the Information Society Directive") as interpreted prior to 31 December 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. That does seem to suggest that aspect of the EU case law remains part of UK law, not including any newer CJEU decisions but including older ones as precedents, unless it gets explicitly repealed. But, it could maybe be read that acts from 2021 and later may be judged differently. The ruling was also before the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, which could affect things, though it's not immediately apparent that it will. I to tend to agree that we should probably follow the EU definition until a UK court finds a reason to diverge, if ever. A ruling in this area could be one way to reinforce the UK is no longer part of the EU, but it may also be an aspect that is easier for commerce with the EU if the definitions agree. But given commentary, I think we should probably shift to Sheridan as being the correct threshold in the UK. Any future clarifications from the CJEU on the matter won't be binding in the UK but they may certainly take them into account. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
+1 to @Clindberg Gnom (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Is File:Muwekma Ohlone Tribe flag.png above TOO?

Is File:Muwekma Ohlone Tribe flag.png above TOO in the USA? The picture of the dancer in the middle is from a 1845 painting, so that element of the flag is PD. The shape that the dancer is in the middle of is what I would like feedback on. I leaning towards it being above TOO given the complexity of its colouration and shape, but would like confirmation. Intervex (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, that simple geometric design is not original enough and probably falls under the Threshold of Originality. Bastique ☎ let's talk! 22:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
It says it's based on an 1845 painting so I think we're ok. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Only the dancer is from the painting. The question is whether the geometric shape behind the dancer is above or below TOO. Intervex (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The texture is questionable. The shape however seems simple enough to me AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Claws in logos

I know that TOO in the US is pretty high, although some exceptions indicated on this page make me doubt about this logo, which depicts a simple monogram with a claw in the middle of both initials.

My question is, is the claw figure original enough to be considered under copyright? A similar college sports logo (Clemson University) is hosted here under a PD-pre1978 license so I can't be sure if this logo would be copyrightable in case of having been created after that date. Fma12 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that claws are above TOO in the US. Intervex (talk) 00:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

How is this not a COM:NETCOPYVIO?

This picture was uploaded to commons in 2019. Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sony-playstation_prototype.jpg I found the exact photo in full resolution on Reddit which was posted in May 2018. The shadow of photographer, composition and presence of personal items at the edge of the item are exactly the same, so no reasonable person would believe these are from a different photo. Yann says that it is not a copyright violation and removed my speedy deletion request without offering any explanation in edit summary or otherwise.

Just because an uploader grabbed some random item off the web and labeled it as free for all to use, or "their own work" doesn't make it so. Can someone explain what I'm missing here or is Yann's assertion even correct? Graywalls (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done OK deleted. Yann (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: , I believe I am owed an explanation in this situation where you removed my CSD claiming it was "not a copyright violation" and demanded that it be sent to nomination. The netcopyvio situation was clearly explained in speedy tag and source clearly indicated. Graywalls (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Files in Category:High-resolution or SVG official Wikimedia logos

Many of these are under CC BY SA, despite being most likely PD-Simple.


If they were logos of other companies, they'd likely be uploaded as PD.


Of course there are exceptions, like the Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikinews, and possibly Wikimedia Enterprise logos, but other than that most of the logos there are simple geometric designs. JayCubby (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Where a free license is marked, but an item is in the public domain in certain countries (whether due to lack of qualification for copyright or expiry of term), the free license is still applicable as a fallback provision. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

1943 movie poster

File:Girl Crazy.webp was recently uploaded as PD as copyright was not renewed. Assuming this is right (it seems rare it was renewed?) are other versions such as this one similarly uploadable? CMD (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  • They're different works, so their copyright status needs to be assessed separately. This version of the poster is big enough for me to make out a copyright notice, but I can't actually read it to see who the copyright holder was. Copyright for a 1943 work was due for renewal in 1971-72, and I can't find an artwork or "commercial print or label" renewal for "Girl Crazy" around that time. That, and as you say, renewals were relatively rare, makes me think this is almost certainly OK. I'd be happier if I could see the name of the copyright holder though. --Rlandmann (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
    Found a 3rd version here. The copyright notice is identical for all 3, it's unclear, but from the third version you can see it's two words and the second one is "incorporated". Could it be "Harms incorporated"? That would make it en:T. B. Harms & Francis, Day & Hunter, Inc. CMD (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
It's Loew's Incorporated. --Rosenzweig τ 13:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah thanks :) CMD (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks Rosenzweig. The only thing Loew's Inc. renewed in that time period was some Wizard of Oz-themed writing paper for children.
However, the copyright on Girl Crazy was renewed (L13168, August 6, 1970), so any stills on the various posters that are from the movie itself (rather than a publicity photo taken during production or rehearsal, or an alternate take) are not free and make the overall poster unfree. --Rlandmann (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The posters were certainly published before the film, so they can't be derivative works of the film. Yann (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Do we know that all three versions of this poster (and which one(s)?) were published after the film? (Keeping in mind that "published" in the US could be all kinds of distribution, or even offers of distrubution, many of which could have happened long before even the first screening took place.)
The second question I guess is (assuming that these are stills from the final, copyrighted version of the film) whether, even if the posters were published earlier, the renewal of the film's copyright preserved the copyright in the stills which would otherwise have lapsed when the posters' copyrights lapsed. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The renewal of a copyright in a film would not cause the renewal of a separate copyright in any other work, even posters or other images associated with the film. They would have had to have been renewed separately. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Distribution (or offers to distribute) the trailers and posters for a film would have occurred before the film itself was actually distributed or definitively offered for distribution (and these promotional materials were used in the lead-up to the film's actual release). This earlier publication is why such items are not derivative works of the later-published item, as @Yann says. When this happened, whatever contents first published in those materials — even if later also published in the final film — would enter the public domain (if published without a notice) or eventually expire with the work within which those materials were first published (where the poster or trailer's copyright was not renewed). Therefore, certain frames from full films (which remain under copyright generally) are often in the public domain.
I would also tentatively draw a distinction between two kinds of offer of distribution of work, which may be relevant for determining the publication date of various materials. Let's call these a conceptual and a real offer. A conceptual offer can be made even before the work "offered" for distribution has been created. For instance, I can promise to send you a book when I am done writing it, or (more commonly) you could sign up for a subscription to my magazine. Maybe when you subscribe to the magazine you have, in some sense, taken me up on an offer to receive my next twelve monthly issues. Despite this, the issue I publish next year is not published when this "conceptual offer" is made, but instead when that issue is tangibly put into distribution or "really" offered.
Along the same lines, I am not sure that an offer to distribute a work which is conditioned on its non-exploitation until a certain date results in the publication of a work before the final date on which its exploitation is actually allowed. For instance, let's imagine a movie that premiered on January 1. The film would probably need to have been factually distributed to the theaters even before the new year struck, but, if distributed under the proviso that it is not to be exploited until January 1, then perhaps the year of publication is the later year. This is a little complicated because the publication of films was tied not only to exhibition but also to the ability to purchase/rent copies from the general distributors. But you can also think of a book that is generally published on January 1; the bookstores must have been able to buy and receive their wholesale stock before then, but, if that stock is sold to them on the condition that it not be disseminated before January 1, then I would think that general publication only occurs on January 1. If we go by that standard, then we should count movies as being published on their actual date of release, which is the first date on which the purchased copies could be normally exploited. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you -- do you know of some case law around "Therefore, certain frames from full films (which remain under copyright generally) are often in the public domain"? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    Anything that was first published in a trailer with no notice (the vast majority in that era), or on which the copyright was not renewed, is in the public domain. Trailers tend to contain some frames which are also in the actual movie. Even if the full movie as a whole is under copyright, the frames which entered the public domain via inclusion in the trailer are not copyrighted. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
One consideration is that the movie is based on a 1930 stage musical, which is still under copyright for another year (renewed in 1957). The posters could be considered derivative works of the musical. But the posters in question contain only generic elements like a man and a woman in cowboy costumes, not any copyrightable elements of expression from the musical, so I don't think they would be considered infringing. Toohool (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the musical in question wouldn't be PD-US until 2026, but nothing in this poster is a derivative work of that musical. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I am sending on behalf of another user, who told me that he uploaded this image: Gianni Matragrano.png. I noticed this and asked him to message the creator of the image (as he did not make it.). The creator of the image, who is Gianni Matragrano, said he could upload the image. What copyright template should I do if he did not ever license it (eg creative commons.) what template should I use?

SUMMARY: An uploader of File:Gianni Matragrano.png has gotten permission from the person who took the image to upload it to commons, but at the moment the license is not specified. What template should I use? Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Gianni Matragrano.png. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
@Cooldudeseven7: sorry, but "you can upload the image to Commons" is not enough, nor can we allow an individual user to just say they have permission (or anyone could say they had permission for anything).
Rather than "you can upload the image to Commons" we need a specific free license that explicitly allows derivative works and is not limited to non-commercial use.
Rather than you asserting you have permission, we need that grant of license either (1) to be in a public-facing statement on a website or social media account clearly under control of the copyright-holder (probably not practical in this case, because it is not immediately obvious who would be the copyright-holder) or (2) through the COM:VRT process, which is what I recommend in this case. Note that for VRT, the email must come from the copyright-holder, not from (or via) a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
It is from the copyright holder. Do I need to provide actual proof of the email? Cooldudeseven7 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Damage Assessment Toolkit application screenshots

Under {{PD-DAT}} it is stated that images from the NWS Damage Assessment Toolkit application are public domain, however, screenshots of the application of itself are less clear. Indeed, while using the application, I noticed that the copyright notice at the bottom of the screen had expanded, now citing "Esri Community Maps Contributors, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS | NOAA/NWS" for information (I've bolded what I believe to be private companies not releasing their material under a free license). I checked Microsoft's service agreement and it specificly states that "unauthorized sharing of... ...other copyrighted material, resale or other distribution of Bing maps" is not allowed under their license terms, so it follows that their map data is being used in the Damage Assessment Toolkit application, screenshots of which are being uploaded to Commons under Public Domain licenses. I'm not fully familiar with Commons so I'm not sure the next step, so I hope someone more adept at this platform than me can guide me, but note this does NOT affect the PD-DAT template which outlines images specifically, not application screenshots. Pinging @EF5 because they stated earlier that application screenshots were public domain as well. I found the license disclaimer above while zooming in on Crawford County Airport in southeast Illinois, United States. Departure– (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Tom Eckersley posters

The English graphic designer Tom Eckersley was responsible for several wartime UK government posters, such as this one. The English Wikipedia article does not make it sound as if he were an official of the Crown. In that case, they would presumably still be copyrighted since Eckersley died in 1997. I just wanted to check the reasoning held up before I file a DR. Felix QW (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  • He doesn't seem to have produced his work as an employee, so to claim (expired) Crown copyright, we would need to see a notice to that effect (I can't read the text at the bottom of the poster you linked, nor find a higher-resolution version online) or some kind of verification that Eckersley transferred his copyright to the Crown. COM:ONUS places the burden of that proof on the uploader or people arguing to keep the images here, and in the absence of such evidence, they're presumably unfree for the reason that you give. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
    As far as I understand Crown copyright, even transferring your copyright to the Crown does not render it "Crown Copyright" in the sense of making the shorter term applicable; See for instance page 5 of this guidance. Felix QW (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    • I agree that makes the distinction abundantly clear. In which case, it's irrelevant what arrangement Eckersley had with the government; his works are protected by copyright until 2068. Good find! --Rlandmann (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    He doesn't seem to have produced his work as an employee — what source of information do you have on that? EnWPm says Having originally joined the Royal Air Force and being charged with cartographic work, Eckersley was transferred to the Publicity Section of the Air Ministry, this allowed him to work from home and take commercial commissions again, for example from the General Post Office. If he was an employee of the Publicity Section of the Air Ministry, then mightn't Crown Copyright provisions apply? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    FYI, the text at the bottom of this poster says: "Issued by the Ministry of Labour and National Service and produced by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Terminal House, 52 Grosvenor Gardens, London, S.W.1." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    Also, here is a link to a somewhat better scan of the same poster: IWM. This source includes a claim that the posted is copyrighted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, but I can't verify that either way. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
    I tried to get that copy, but it is not that large, and there is a watermark. Yann (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Crown Copyright was very different then. From the 1956 act:
Her Majesty shall, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, be entitled—
(a)to the copyright in every original literary, dramatic or musical work first published in the United Kingdom, or in another country to which section two of this Act extends, if first published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department;
(b)to the copyright in every original artistic work first published in the United Kingdom, or in another country to which section three of this Act extends, if first published by or under such direction or control.
The 1911 Act stated: Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work.
If it was Crown Copyright under either of those definitions, then it remains Crown Copyright. If it was a "wartime UK government poster", it would have been hard to avoid Crown Copyright. It was not until the 1988 act where the definition was limited to employees, but that did not change the status of anything which already was Crown Copyright. I guess this was mostly done by a private organization, but it was "issued by the Ministry of Labour and National Service". Eckersley was an RAF employee at the time it seems like, though these may have been done on his own time. But it was hard to avoid being Crown Copyright in that era. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Right, they would seem to have been done "for Queen and Country".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
So following Carl's information, I uploaded some files either by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents or the Central Office of Information. Yann (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Hi, There are many more posters by Tom Eckersley from various UK organisations on [8], but I don't know which ones would qualify as Crown Copyright. Some more knowledge of UK administrations is needed. Yann (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Art-100.jpg

Didn't see I should have asked for help here, and not the community page. Just found my original artwork of the Last Supper on Wikimedia. My website page here https://freechristimages.com/bible-stories/last-supper.html shows it is only available as a print. I'll add my copyright info right away. Here is the original upload to wikimedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Art-100.jpg&oldid=297632321 and the current page stating it is in the public domain (it is not in the public domain) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Art-100.jpg Any help taking it down would be greatly appreciated! Thank you, Laura Sotka 108.81.157.4 07:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I renamed the file to File:Leonardo da Vinci, The Last Supper, restored.jpg. I think you could be credited for the restoration, but claiming a copyright is a bit farfetched. This is not your original artwork, as you claim above, but a work by Leonardo da Vinci, made in the 15th century. Anyway, we won't accept any claim from an IP. You need to send some proof to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Yann (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Da Vinci's Last Supper is public domain --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
If you look at the restoration though, the entire bottom middle section seems to have been replaced completely by the restorer. In my mind, that could well suffice for copyright protection. Felix QW (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

license for reproductions in article JBENP Jean Bernard Editeur à Nîmes et à Paris

Hello, My publication contains some reproductions of postal cards which have more than 100 years ago. The french legislation makes that these documents are all free of right (domaine public). So is it obligatory for me to return another justification to wikipedia community? Thank you for your answer. Regards, P F( 'Ennemonde') Ennemonde (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ennemonde: Your postcards are probably OK (unless there is a photographer mentioned, and s/he died after 1954), but {{CC-0}} is the wrong license. They should be either {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} or {{PD-France}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. Please fix that. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

TOO and historical Windows screenshots

Hi! I try to cover some old historical software and would like to know if screenshots like this (Windows 1.0 DR5) and this (W 1.0 Alpha), this exceed the threshold of originality. In my mind, it's too simple, but I would like hear other opinions. Thanks! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Windows' UIs are not copyrighted themselves. The overall organization of the elements in this screenshot is indeed rather trivial. So, you can mark it as {{Pd-shape}}. By the way we already have Category:Windows_1.0_screenshots for such screenshots. Ruslik (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Assuming we are talking strictly about the U.S., it is hard to imagine a problem with either of those. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, yes, it's very likely we only have to take the US jurisdictions into account :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/12&oldid=971734555"