Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 40

Cover einer CD

I intend to upload an image of a cover from a CD that I received from Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk for my own use. So the audio file is protected. Does this also apply to the cover? Viola sonans (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the threshold of originality (see "de:Schöpfungshöhe"). --PaulT (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

danke! Viola sonans (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ein Rembrandt im Hintergrund (>70 Jahre tot; Kopie eines 2D-Werkes) wäre ok, eine alte Orgel im Hintergrund sicher nicht (3D, da hat sicher der Fotograph noch Urheberrechte, wenn er nicht >70 Jahre tot ist)). Und dann könnte noch hinreichende Schöpfungshöhe entstehen durch eine entsprechende künstlerische Gestaltung des Covers und/oder der Schrift. --PaulT (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ich habe das Foto hochgeladen: File:Festgottesdienst am 11.09.2005.jpg – Wikimedia Commons

Demnach ist das wohl nicht nicht zulässig. Ich war als Musiker beteiligt und habe auch fotografiert. Das Orgelbild könnte ich also durch ein eigenes Foto ersetzen. Viola sonans (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Es würde auch gehen, wenn der Urheber des Fotos die entsprechenden (sehr weit gehenden) Rechte für Commons einräumt. Ein selbst fotographiertes Bild ist natürlich ok. Für eine Freigabe über OTRS gibt es hier Anleitungs-Videos: Category:When and how to contact OTRS (video tutorial). --PaulT (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Ich habe erst einmal das Foto durch ein eigenes ersetzt. Für die Videos müsste mir wohl viel Zeit nehmen, vielleicht später einmal. Jedenfalls vielen Dank! Viola sonans (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

License creation

Are there procedures set in place for creating a new copyright license? Does a new license need to be vetted or discussed in some way before it can be used? I am asking about this because of Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-TXGov and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-TNGov, which were two recently created US state PD licenses. Even assuming that the users who created those two did so with the best of intentions, it seems odd that they could simply create a license without it being proposed or discussed in any way. As soon as a license is created, it's likely going to start being used, which means files uploaded under it are also eventually going to need to be sorted out. This sorting out could end up taking a bit of time and multiple DRs as shown by Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-MNGov (2nd nomination); so, it seems like a good idea to establish some procedures for creating a new license if they don't already exist. If they do exist and are simply not being followed, then it might also be a good idea if there was a way to find such licenses more quickly so that they can be dealt with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Such licence template pages can be created and edited by anybody, like (most) other template pages. Restricting template creation in general would make for a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy. It might certainly be a good idea to discuss a licence before creating a template for it, but there are obvious cases where experienced editors know the licence is uncontroversial (and how to create a good template). I don't know whether such deletion discussions are common enough to warrant any guidelines. –LPfi (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree G3nseven (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Importing old images from de.wp

I would like to import this picture from de.wp, but get "This file cannot be transferred to Wikimedia Commons, because it is not marked with a compatible licence." The file is from 1897, hence {{PD-Old}}

Is there an easy way to do this? (I tried putting {{PD-Old}} on the file, but that didn't work) Huldra (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Just change the license tag like this (adding |Commons=Ja). Try again now, I think it should work. --Rosenzweig τ 23:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Rosenzweig, but sadly no: it still don't work (I get "This file cannot be transferred to Wikimedia Commons, because it is not marked with a compatible licence. Wikimedia Commons does not allow such files. This might be resolvable, but most probably means the file is not compatible. Please consult the Wikimedia Commons community policy and talk pages about licensing.") Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I also tried adding |Commons=ja, |Commons=Yes, |Commons=yes; none of those worked, either, Huldra (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right, none of that works, sorry. Only changing the license tag to {{Bild-PD-alt|Commons=Ja}} helps. That's strictly speaking not the correct tag for the file, but if you definitively know the file is ok here like in this case, it's a workaround. --Rosenzweig τ 22:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, great, that worked! Thanks again, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Army Air Force License Tag

The United States Air Force did not exist until 1947 and the aerial arm of the U.S. military that was around at the time, the United States Army Air Force (and before that the United States Army Air Corps), was subordinate to the United States Army. Therefore, which license tag should be used for files created by the aforementioned organization during World War II? Therefore, it seems there are four options:

• Use Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air Force
• Use Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army
• Use Template:PD-USGov-Military
• Create a new Template:PD-USGov-Military-Army Air Force

However, I am not sure which route to take. Any suggestions? –Noha307 (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I would probably just use the Army tag, though I could see the Air Force tag if works were part of the WWII strategic air effort. Don't think it's worth another tag. In the end, all PD-USGov* licenses are the same licensing reason; the more specific tags are just there for subcategorization, and also to be more specific on the authors/source (and certain government agencies have more specific warnings for non-government works they are likely to have). So, doesn't much matter. The USAAF was part of the Army, so that would be fine, though the successor agency was the USAF, so Air Force could be fine too using that logic. Don't think it matters much. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Carl; given the time, I'd just use the Army tag and be done with it. It's all PD regardless. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Requirement for US copyright status in foreign works

It seems that our requirement for the foreign works to be in the public domain in the US runs afoul of Berne Convention. Article 7 says: "The term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed" and that "unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work". Also, the Copyright Alliance says that the US as a member of the Berne Convention "honors the copyright in works of authors from all member countries, whether the work has been registered in that foreign country or not". Thoughts? Brandmeister (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the WMF is not a Berne Convention signatory, so can't run afoul of it. The US doesn't have the rule of the shorter term, as permitted by the text you quote, and since WMF is founded and has servers in the US, it has to follow US law. I don't know what you think the last quote means; if the US didn't honor foreign copyright, we wouldn't have this problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Is WMF a legislative body and does it stand above Berne Convention? Hardly so. What US law exactly requires foreign works to be public domain in the US? Currently we just proclaim that requirement ex cathedra. What's more, the link to a US public domain tag in templates like Template:PD-old-70 leads to tags that are either applicable only to the US works or have outlandish requirements conflicting with existing copyright law of a given country, such as Template:PD-1996. Brandmeister (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Title 17 makes it a crime to violate the copyright on copyrighted works in the US, whether they are foreign or US. That's actually what the Berne Convention is all about.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to clarify, but we're talking about foreign works that are public domain in their home country, not the copyrighted ones. If under Berne Convention the US "honors the copyright in works of authors from all member countries", why we have the requirement that a foreign public domain work must also be PD in the US (as in Template:PD-old-70)? That means some weird extraterritorial jurisdiction. Brandmeister (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikimedia is a U.S. institution, so we need to follow U.S. law. If a work is still copyrighted by U.S. law, then it's illegal (in the U.S.) to host it here, unless we have a license, or unless it's fair use (which is much harder to argue without a specific context for the work, so we don't allow those at all per WMF directive). A work can expire in some countries but still be copyrighted in others, as different countries protect copyright for different amounts of time. An author can sue in any country where their work is still protected, if used in that country. The voluntary part of our policy is respecting the law in the country of origin -- strictly speaking we don't have to do that, but as an internationally-focused project, much of the time the primary audience for a work will be that country, so on balance it's better to wait until the work expires there (which also has the benefit of making it public domain in all countries which use the Berne rule of the shorter term, which is far from all, but a decent number). We don't wait until it's public domain in *all* countries.

The English Wikipedia follows U.S. law only, and some other language-focused projects may use other laws, and essentially claim U.S. fair use for works which have not yet expired in the U.S. As stated in your quote, "The term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed" -- so if you claim copyright in a particular country, you have to go by that country's laws. That country may protect copyright for a shorter, equal, or longer amount of time than the country you live in, but if you bring a copyright infringement lawsuit in that other country, it would be controlled by the law of the country where you bring the lawsuit. The law in your own country has little to no bearing on that lawsuit. The U.S. does not use the rule of the shorter term, but uses its own term for all works, regardless of where they were published. So even if a work expires in a foreign country, it can still be copyrighted in the U.S., meaning any use of it in the U.S. is subject to infringement there. By the same token, if a work expires before the country of origin, it is then fine to use in the U.S. since there is no more protection there, but usages in the country of origin still need a license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Extraterritorial jurisdiction doesn't apply if you're suing an American entity in American courts for actions taken in America like the WMF distributing a work on American servers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I see. The culprit seems to be Uruguay Round Agreements Act which brings dissonance between US and non-US copyright laws. Brandmeister (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Not really. It's that the US has a publication based duration for copyrights of works published before 1978, and that the US doesn't have the rule of the shorter term. Without the URAA, huge amounts of foreign works would be in the public domain in the US, even relatively modern ones, but that would just put the US further away from non-US copyright laws.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with Prosfilaes, not really -- it is the dissonance between the publication-based term in the U.S. for works published before 1978, and thus still the relevant term for most photos here, and the life-based term in other countries. They are on average probably roughly equivalent with a 70pma country, but the terms for particular works can vary highly (depending on whether a work was made early or late in life). You can still get the same issue in non-U.S. countries though; many countries are 50pma instead of 70pma, and a couple are higher (Spain was 80pma, and still has those terms for people who died before 1987, and Colombia is still 80pma). Some countries have different, publication-based terms for corporate works, so those could still be in dissonance with other countries who use the human author's life for the same work. There is a lot of variety in terms, especially when historical terms are still relevant in a country. The URAA made it much more noticeable by making many works re-copyrighted in the U.S., since previously most were public domain through lack of notice etc, meaning few copyrights in the U.S. outlived the European terms. But, the EU copyright restorations did much the same -- the same day the URAA went into effect, the UK increased the term for photographs from 50 years from creation to life plus 70 years (which of course then qualified all of those for URAA restorations). That caused similar problems for an immense number of works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Printed Circuit Boards

see also Category:Printed circuit boards

I am concerned about the copyright status of several files in this directory. No doubt the photographs themselves are correctly licensed, but I am more concerned about the printed circuit boards depicted in them, as I would highly doubt that many, if any, of the boards have had a license obtained that is compatible with Wikimedia Commons.

A printed circuit board is a creative work and as such the pattern of copper and silkscreen deposited is fully protected artwork under United States copyright law (17 U.S.C. §§101 et seq.). The image at right depicts the entire top layer of copper expressly and wholly, and if I were the owner of that design, I know I would not be okay with it being published with a license that implied share and share alike, as that may well impact my commercial exploitation of my own design, were it to be copied by a competitor.

I may moonlight as a Wikipedian, but my day job is PCB design. If anyone would like to know more about my experience with my designs and the IP laws that cover them, feel free to ask. I raise the issue here because I normally do not get involved in license discussions and was not sure if I should just jump to nominating some of these for deletion, or whether there was something in our policies I am not aware of that I needed to account for first. I look forward to hearing from folks who swim in this pool regularly. I would also like to come up with a notification that can be added to Category:Printed circuit boards that can inform contributors about the unique issues with PCBs and our licensing requirements. Josh (talk) 09:12, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The traces on PCBs are the shortest path between two points that should be connected. If you could make the distance 0 by a magic trick, you would do so. Therefore PCB layouts can not be protected by copyright since the shortest path between two points is no creative work (therefore no licence is needed). If the traces on a PCB board look creative it's just because your brain wants to see patterns were there are none. Even using someone's brain is may involved in the making of PCBs, it's outcome is too simple to pass the threshold of creativity to be protected by copyright. There are many other examples like the outside of regular cars that are also not protectable by copyright. Someone may spend some time and thought with it, but their curves are also not creative enough to be copyrightable

Asked from a different point: How many times have you (as PCB designer) taken a layout from Commons and used it as inspiration or straight up pirated it?

Even the designer of the YAMAHA logo might not be OK with the logo being used here, it is ineligible for copyright as well and therefore nobody has to care about their opinion. Nobody uses Wikipedia to check on the latest PCB designs to pirate it. Furthermore the design itself does not help you at all since you also need a lot more know how and different electrical components including ICs and maybe even their software. It's like Nike would worry about their shoes being pirated because someone uploaded an image of their new pair of sneakers on Commons. If you expect people to pirate a PCB layout from an image on Commons you simply see causality where there is none.

On IP laws: Samsung and Apple had a dispute about the rounded corners on their smartphones. One claimed that their fabrication style is a unique feature of their product and must not be used by their opponent. We have images of many Apple and Samsung devices for the very same reason: Rounded corners are not copyrightable.

--D-Kuru (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner I think @D-Kuru is right. Per Wikipedia creative work "is a manifestation of creative effort including fine artwork (sculpture, paintings, drawing, sketching, performance art), dance, writing (literature), filmmaking, and composition" only. I found an exception for Integrated circuit layout design protection: "rights in semiconductor mask works last 10 years".

But we do not show a mask here, only the end product of the PCB. Raymond 07:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@D-Kuru and Raymond: You misunderstand me. I am not debating whether or not there are elements of PCB designs that are covered by copyright. I know there are. I am not wondering whether photographs of PCBs can infringe on that copyright. I know they can. I know this as a result of working with intellectual property attorneys in my professional capacity regarding this exact issue. Your analysis is not unreasonable, and in fact many of the same points were the same we discussed, but at the end of the day, the fact is that PCBs do have copyright-protected elements and photographs of those can in fact represent copyright infringement. I could go on at length about exactly why, but none that changes the fact.

My only question here was what are we going to do about it? If the answer is that we need a compliant license to depict copyrightable portions of printed circuit boards, then great. If the answer is that we do not care if a copyright is being infringed since it is too niche of a specialty for anyone to really cause a fuss over, then that is fine by me as well. And if the answer is that we are going to pretend we know better than people who actually have real-world experience with the matter, well, I guess there is not much more to discuss, so I accept that as well. Josh (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: "[...] photographs of PCBs can infringe on that copyright. I know they can.", "I could go on at length about exactly why, but none that changes the fact." - You already really should have provided some examples by now because it would actually change a lot. All I see is that you claim a problem exists without providing any evidence or providing a clear case. Source: Trust me bro! You claim that PCBs or elements of it are copyrightable but you do not provide any example of what is protected and how the copyright would be violated. I explained why I don't think that it is even possible to violate copyright with images of PCBs. If you don't give some concrete examples it's not about compliant licences or not caring or even about pretending "we know better than people who actually have real-world experience with the matter". It's about one person (you) claims to work with such problems in their day job and claims that copyrighted is violated (could potentially be the case) but said person does not give a single example for such a case. Source: Because I say it is! is far to little for such a claim (I know they can falls into the same category). --D-Kuru (talk) 10:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: I understand all of that, and if the response had simply been that we cannot act without more basis, then that would be fine and I would understand. But I am sorry to say your response was disappointing. Your very first sentence and the rest of that paragraph made it clear that there is a lot about PCB design that you do not understand. I have no idea where you got such concepts from but they fall very far from the truth. I appreciate that you now admit it is just why you don't think it is possible to violate copyright, but your initial presentation was as if it was just fact, and combining that with how off you were in the first sentence, it did not appear to me that you were much interested in actually having a conversation about it. Now maybe this was just a completely incorrect vibe that I got from it, and if that is the case, I completely apologize for misreading you.

Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to share any of the specifics of my professional conversations as I am sure you will understand. If that makes my post here ineligible for consideration, I completely understand and certainly have no desire to push the issue on a 'because I say so' basis. I merely know that there are many PCB designs with significant portions that are covered by copyright, and that our having photos of them is an infringement on that copyright. Thus I felt the responsibility to the project to raise the issue here to see what if anything was to be done about it. Note that I was not even proposing a particular course of action. I am perfectly fine with the answer being whatever it is, and frankly if the consensus is no action needed, that's perfect, I can go back to categorizing these images and not worry about whether they are infringements.

If you really do want to know more about why PCBs are more than they seem when it comes to copyright and IP issues, I am happy to discuss what I can about it. However, I suspect that the best course for this post is to simply close the discussion as I cannot bring the hard evidence that would be needed to actually prompt a policy change. I won't worry about these images and I will leave the license policing to others. Josh (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

There was further discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by subject matter#Printed_Circuit_Boards. Normally we try not to start the same discussion at different talk pages, but rather pick one and maybe put a link to there from some others, to get the notice of other editors but still have a single discussion. Commons:Village Pump/Copyright probably would have been the best place, actually. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Add image of Iranian actor majid vasheghani, to Wikipedia

Add image of Iranian actor to Wikipedia Masoudbarati33 (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Masoudbarati33: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have also triggered Special:AbuseFilter/156 by trying to upload a smaller (<50,000 bytes) jpg image as a new user. Usually when someone uploads a smaller jpg image, it is a copyright violation taken from the web. If you created the image yourself, please upload the full-size original of it per COM:HR, including original EXIF metadata. If you did not create the image, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it, and have the copyright holder license it on their official website or social media, or send the image and permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. If you can't get a compliant license, the image may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. See also en:H:PIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 23:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Add image to Wikipedia

Add image of hossein Hosseini player of Esteghlal to Wikipedia Masoudbarati33 (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Masoudbarati33: Read COM:L.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 22:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Hosting the text of free licenses on-wiki, where that text is non-free

The GFDL is a free license. But the text of the GFDL itself is non-free:

Version 1.3, 3 November 2008 Copyright (C) 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

That doesn’t stop us from hosting that text in Commons namespace; we have some sort of (unwritten?) exemption that allows this. Apparently, we now have such an exemption for files, too; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:GFDL (English).ogg.

At that DR, concerns were raised about whether such exemptions were allowed by the licensing policy and, if so, how they should be documented. It seems clear that such exemptions, at least for files, are not allowed by the licensing policy. What should we do about this?

Pinging @Matr1x-101, Accipiter Gentilis Q., Mdaniels5757, A4531826, King of Hearts, IronGargoyle as users involved in the DR. Brianjd (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think the intent here was to prohibit derivative works of the license. The point was that if you change it, then you can no longer call it the GFDL license. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Jmabel The GFDL’s treatment of ‘Invariant Sections’ and ‘Cover Texts’ makes it clear what their intent is. Also, the GPL contains substantially the same text as quoted above (the second line is identical) and the GPL FAQ says (emphasis added):

  You can legally use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).

  A later section says:

  The preamble and instructions are integral parts of the GNU GPL and may not be omitted. In fact, the GPL is copyrighted, and its license permits only verbatim copying of the entire GPL.

  It is reasonable to assume that these attitudes apply equally to the GFDL. Brianjd (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

My opinion: The only hard requirement we have is that our content must be legal to host in the United States. Otherwise, we allow certain restrictions on freedoms depending on a variety of factors such as practicality and impact on the free-culture movement. For instance, per COM:NCR we allow images of people that you can't use to advertise a product, as well as simple text logos that you can't use to sell a product. I think this is because we have no desire to abolish publicity or trademark rights, or to ask famous people for rights to their likeness under the theoretical possibility that it could be useful in an advertisement. Regarding COM:FOP, we do not allow non-commercial FoP because it is a motivating factor that may cause people to lobby governments to change their laws; there have been some successes like Russia and Belgium, with the Wikimedia movement perhaps playing some role. However, we do allow images that carry restrictions on certain types of derivative works, namely extremely detailed crops of copyrighted works (COM:DM), because we don't want to ban high-resolution panoramas that happen to include an intrusive billboard and don't want to incentive people to make it illegal to photograph PD-old buildings by putting copyrighted sculptures in front of them; there is no substantial harm to the free-content movement by allowing such images.

The GFDL is clearly legal for us to host, per the text itself. So the question is whether allowing this exception to our "100% free" principle helps or harms the movement. My view is that it helps the movement by assisting visually impaired users in understanding a major free license. The text of free licenses is a highly isolated edge case so there's no slippery slope either. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, we need to put a disclaimer template on the file page if we want to keep this file. --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 15:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Matr1x-101 Why do we need a disclaimer? Why isn't the statement that "changing it is not allowed" enough? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757, sorry if my English wasn't clear enough, but I meant like a red box at the top stating that "only verbatim copying is allowed" and "derivative works may be restricted", linking to this talk page to show consensus was reached (if it is reached). --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 21:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757 I think what @Matr1x-101 means is that we need a prominent notice stating that this file is an exception to our normal licensing policy, along with a link explaining why that exception is allowed. None of that is currently in the file description. Brianjd (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 12:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a red box at the top of the page. Are any other changes needed? (pinging @Brianjd, King of Hearts, and Mdaniels5757) --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 13:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, a user has just tagged the file as {{Nonderivative}}, which I reverted (with a link to this page). Brianjd (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The Open Gaming License (OGL 1.0a) should be added to an approved license here on the Commons

[Removing text of the Open Gaming License 1.0a due to copyright reasons, license text can be found here] --Matr1x-101^{Pinging me doesn't hurt!} {user - talk? - useless contributions} 14:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Slinkyw (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No.

Simply because a format-mangled paste dump is no way to make a coherent argument in favour. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Per a post on Help Desk (which I've marked as "section resolved", because we ought to have this conversation in a single place) a well-formatted version of the above can be seen in the "Summary" section of en:File:AbilitiesandConditions.pdf. I also did some HTML markup to make the above read more sanely (placed it inside a PRE element). - Jmabel ! talk 03:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley and @Jmabel: It's also here in the Description of File:3.5 srd Abilities and Conditions.pdf.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

which User:King of Hearts nominated for deletion. @Slinkyw: may I presume that is what this is actually about? It would have saved several people some effort for you to say so in the first place. - Jmabel ! talk 03:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As they were right to do so (both copies), given that it's not sourced (on en:WP) or licensed.

Nor are we particularly accepting of random unexplained large-text dumps.

Should Commons store the full text of major known licences (if permissible)? I'd support that within SCOPE, as they are useful for Commons' core purpose in hosting content, and content either under that licence, under a related licence, or prohibited because of terms in that licence.

But the question here is still unclear – is the intention to host the licence here, so that inevitable discussions involving it can reference a local copy? Or is it that this OGL (I hate that acronym, we already have an OGL) can be used as a free licence for content here? – which probably needs WMF's agreement anyway.

Also (a contentious issue right now) we can't just talk about "OGL", we have to qualify this as OGL 1.0, OGL 1.1 etc, because there are problematic changes between versions in the air. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Small img of court logo

Please, I would like to ask for directions on how to make this small image acceptable on Commons. I believe it can be acceptable to move it over here by application of more appropriate tag, but which tag should be applied in bs.wiki img page (it is already scaled down to 195 × 225 px), Or should I simply upload it here with appropriate tagging, if that's a possibility at all in this specific case? Santasa99 (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Small size doesn't help in this case. If the original image isn't free – which is clearly told on the file description page – it should not be uploaded on Commons. Only if you find some reason why it wouldn't be covered by copyright (symbols of governmental institutions aren't covered in some countries, if the symbol is old the copyright could have expired etc.) can we proceed here. –LPfi (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@Santasa99 Commons, unlike some other projects, does not allow fair use. Brianjd (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The licence rules are not clear enough for "simple" wiki contributors

It is horrible the copyright procedure of wikimedia without any help and/or any explanations to promote the legal but effective contributions for necessary photos. I am totally disappointed. G. Kovics Kövics György Kövics György (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Upload only your own photos, and only of things that aren't human made. (Or were made before the twentieth century.) Anything beyond that, it gets complicated. We can't give simple rules for things that aren't simple. If you have a complaint that isn't so broad, we might be able to help.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

More precisely: we can't unilaterally make laws simpler, and most of our policies are driven by law. And, as Prosfilaes, if you stick to uploading your own images of things that are either very old, or not human-made, that is simple. The complexity comes from trying to upload other people's work. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Press photographs

Would you be allowed to upload press photographs that a tv show released if that only write "All photos are free to use for non-commercial purposes, but please credit ‘PHOTOGRAPHER/EBU’ (photographer named in file name)."? I'm new to all this so I asked instead of getting into problems :) Kakan spelar (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"For non-commercial purposes" is not enough for Commons. Also "free" in connection with press photographs usually means they are free to use for the press in the typical manner (which would usually be fair use also without that note). It is not a licence in the sense we need, which must allow derived works to be used in other contexts. –LPfi (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Kakan spelar (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Picture from German Postcard of 1917

I'm owning a lot of german postcards issued & published before WW1. The photographer or artist of the picture is always not noted on the card. The companies, which issued the card are mostly not existant any more. So I know the date of publication (always before the postal stamps date) but have no chance to get to the name of the author. Is it possible to upload those pictures, each self scanned. What license applies? AHE (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If the photographer is not mentioned on the postcard (check also on the back), then the picture is anonymous, and they can be uploaded to Commons with {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. Yann (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Old maps from the Japanese Imperial Land Survey

Please see Category:Maps from the Japanese Imperial Land Survey. Old topographic maps from the former Japanese Imperial Land Survey（陸地測量部） (predecessors of the current Geospatial Information Authority of Japan（国土地理院, GSI）) have already been uploaded. According to Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Japan, maps before 1967 have expired copyright protection in Japan.

However, "the Survey Act"（測量法） in Japan stipulates restrictions on the use of survey result maps. On GSI website Approval Q&A Q1-11 (in Japanese), it is stated that "Providing maps on the Internet requires approval of "duplication of survey results".". Furthermore, Survey Act does not stipulate duration of survey results protection and the regulations requiring approval for maps apply to those after the enforcement (March 26, 1890) of its predecessor, "the Ordinance on Land Survey Marks"（陸地測量標条例）. -- see Approval Q&A Q1-18 (in Japanese).

I suspect these maps are not free and not available on Commons. --Peka (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• He concerns on the article 29 of the Survey Act of Japan (in English, PDF). Uploading these maps is obvious offence on this law, but I have no idea whether we should count it, for it might fall in Commons:Non-copyright restrictions.--Kareha (枯葉) (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Open Government Licence?

I recently uploaded File:Peter II death letter.jpg, which was tagged as having insufficient information as to copyright. The image is covered by the Open Government Licence (https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/), which as far as I can tell meets all of our requirements. How do I proceed here? RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done License was fixed by AntiCompositeNumber. Yann (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

PD-simple but probably not OK

I have uploaded two logos of Premio Campiello; they are extremely simple SVG squares but the Logo Premio Campiello.png (with text logo) is considered not free. Should I delete them?

• 
• 

-- Carnby (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Old orphan works

The recently added section Commons:Licensing#Old orphan works fails to define "orphan works," nor does it link to any such definition. Pinging @Yann. - Jmabel ! talk 14:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where discussion should be centalized, but I chose to post a comment in response to notice at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Old_orphan_works —RP88 (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC).

I just came here to write that too. I've continued at COM:VPC. --Rosenzweig τ 17:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Orphan work is very well defined in Wikipedia. I added a link. Yann (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

See the COM:VPC discussion for why I think this does goes against Wikimedia Commons' principle of only accepting free content. --Rosenzweig τ 19:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to duplicate the discussion, so I answered on COM:VPC. Yann (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Algerian laws

Hi y'all,

For the record, I started a discussion about to the PD-Algeria templates here Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Algeria. All help and advice is welcome there.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The License of This Logo is Questionable

File:UniZg.png

The uploader stated that this file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication, however, the source website (the university's official website) does not claim that the logo is released to public domain. The logo is also unlikely to be created by the uploader. Benjamin Ceci (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Should we nominate for deletion and move to Wikipedia for fair use? Benjamin Ceci (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Zagreb University. MDCLXIX = 1669. When was this seal first used? Glrx (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

image from VectorStock.com

This appears to be a commercial image website, and I don't see anything there that would allow us to use their images. I came across File:Airplane-line-path-air-plane-flight-route-vector-30110244.jpg which appears to be a simple grab from their site. Should I submit a COM:DR for this or is there a reason this is okay? Josh (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: Uploaded by someone with a grand total of 6 edits to Commons, and who most likely did not understand how licensing works. - Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Joshbaumgartner: I tried to report it, but ended up hitting the spam blacklist, causing this edit. I then found another method of reporting it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G., @Jmabel, thanks for your responses. Licensing and DRs aren't something I do much with, so I appreciate the feedback, and thanks for adding the copyvio tag. If I see other similar ones, I'll follow that example. Josh (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Joshbaumgartner: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Rules for AI created content

Policies need to be updated and have to take content into account, that has been created by an, or with the assistance of an AI. The problem came up on the Village pump on 7 December 23 [1] and the following days, additionally, people who are really into AI and often seem to advocate for handling AI content like other media, have their special place under Commons:AI-generated media. Alexpl (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alexpl: Well, they have their AI-generated uploads there. If you want to make a proposal, please post a new section to COM:VPP.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Logo of National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic

Hi, I am new to commons and i am writing an article on the National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic in dewiki. I want to use the logo as an image in the article. Is it copyrighted or anything? (de:Nationale Statistikbehörde Kirgisistans) Logo MarcelloIV (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@MarcelloIV: That looks like it would be eligible for copyright, and they say "All right reserved". Sadly de-wiki has no allowance for non-free use, so I don't think there's any way you can use it. - Jmabel ! talk 10:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Forbidden licenses

i suggest this section be separated, so that there's 1 section for acceptable ones and 1 for unacceptable. now it's confusing to have Forbidden under acceptable.--RZuo (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably better to change the higher-level section name to "acceptable and unacceptable licenses" since other subsections also discuss unacceptable licenses. But if we do this, make sure to keep an anchor for "Acceptable licenses" because many things link here.

Any objections to my making that change? I'd like to allow at least three days for comment. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - sound and useful. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

maybe we can simply make the current paragraphs between "Acceptable licenses" and "1.1 Multi-licensing" the new 1st subsection. and add a new section title "types of licenses" or "acceptance" or "validity" or something like that? RZuo (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Licensing&diff=prev&oldid=838399355

if you all agree.

then i would suggest moving the subsection forbidden up to follow the subsection acceptable or Multi-licensing. RZuo (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@RZuo: So while we are in the middle of discussing this, and I specifically allowed three days for comment before making any change to this section, you unilaterally make an edit that takes this in a different direction. I am going to take the liberty to revert that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

for convinience of readers and users, it's better to have the duality of "accepted" vs "not-accepted". and the duality should be parallel to each other, aka have the same level of headings. and it's better to have the two sections one after another (or for example on two side by side columns if that's possible).

on the other hand, someone(!) mentioned that the page is linked from many places. for backward compatibility, best practice is not to change the headings but to retain the "acceptable licences".

so what i did was minimal. just adding 3 words so that we get a structure that puts acceptable and forbidden on the same level.

the current flow of the paragraphs is not clear. it talks about something acceptable, mix in something unacceptable, then go on to talk about examples of something acceptable, then the section for forbidden...

faq pages should be sharp and clear. RZuo (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

you know what? big deal.

change it back to https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Licensing&oldid=417636834 then there's no such problem. RZuo (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We apparently have at least two different directions this could go

• RZuo wants to add a section header "Types of licenses" and demote "Acceptable licenses" a level. (See this edit, which I reverted to allow discussion to reach a consensus.)
  • RZuo, if you think that in any way mischaracterizes what you propose, please feel free to correct it here and below, but please do leave some sort of link that shows your version.
• I (Jmabel) want to keep the prior structure, but change "Acceptable licenses" to "Acceptable and unacceptable licenses".

I'd like to hear from others which they'd prefer. And of course you can add other possibilities. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I notified about this discussion at Commons:Village pump#Licensing (permalink) - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Remark: I genuinely don't see why people want a section to be titled "Acceptable licenses" where, even if we rearrange to get the subsections out from under there, half of the section will still be about what is not' acceptable. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Poll

• Add a section header "Types of licenses" and demote "Acceptable licenses" a level.
  1. and add "Unacceptable licenses" (currently "Forbidden licenses") at the same level as "Acceptable licenses" to clearly delineate which are acceptable and which are unacceptable. This could save heartache down the road at COM:HD and COM:VP.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Leave structure as it is, but change "Acceptable licenses" to "Acceptable and unacceptable licenses".
  1. Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Third alternative: Add a section header "Types of licenses", demote "Acceptable licenses" a level and change its name to "Acceptable and unacceptable licenses".
  1. I'd be OK with this (as my second choice) but I still find the word "types" terribly vague. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Is custom licence allowed?

I've seen custom licences like informal attribution requirements allowed here. Am I allowed to place this modified CC BY-SA 4.0 licence (still free) on my photos then? (but again, I'm not a lawyer!)

## Free Stock 1.0 Public License

By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Free Stock 1.0 Public License ("Public License"). To the extent this Public License may be interpreted as a contract, You are granted the Licensed Rights in consideration of Your acceptance of these terms and conditions, and the Licensor grants You such rights in consideration of benefits the Licensor receives from making the Licensed Material available under these terms and conditions.

### Section 1 – Definitions.

a. __Adapted Material__ means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image.

b. __Adapter's License__ means the license You apply to Your Copyright and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License.

c. __Copyright and Similar Rights__ means copyright and/or similar rights closely related to copyright including, without limitation, performance, broadcast, sound recording, and Sui Generis Database Rights, without regard to how the rights are labeled or categorized. For purposes of this Public License, the rights specified in Section 2(b)(1)-(2) are not Copyright and Similar Rights.

d. __Effective Technological Measures__ means those measures that, in the absence of proper authority, may not be circumvented under laws fulfilling obligations under Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted on December 20, 1996, and/or similar international agreements.

e. __Exceptions and Limitations__ means fair use, fair dealing, and/or any other exception or limitation to Copyright and Similar Rights that applies to Your use of the Licensed Material.

f. __Licensed Material__ means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License.

g. __Licensed Rights__ means the rights granted to You subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, which are limited to all Copyright and Similar Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material and that the Licensor has authority to license.

h. __Licensor__ means the individual(s) or entity(ies) granting rights under this Public License.

i. __Share__ means to provide material to the public by any means or process that requires permission under the Licensed Rights, such as reproduction, public display, public performance, distribution, dissemination, communication, or importation, and to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

j. __Convey__ means to make material available to the public including in ways that members of the public may access the material from a place and at a time individually chosen by them. Merely publicly displaying the material, without the intention to allow the public to obtain copies, is not considered Conveying.

k. __Sui Generis Database Rights__ means rights other than copyright resulting from Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, as amended and/or succeeded, as well as other essentially equivalent rights anywhere in the world.

l. __You__ means the individual or entity exercising the Licensed Rights under this Public License. __Your__ has a corresponding meaning.

### Section 2 – Scope.

a. ___License grant.___

   1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:

       A. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and

       B. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material.

   2. __Exceptions and Limitations.__ For the avoidance of doubt, where Exceptions and Limitations apply to Your use, this Public License does not apply, and You do not need to comply with its terms and conditions.

   3. __Term.__ The term of this Public License is specified in Section 6(a).

   4. __Media and formats; technical modifications allowed.__ The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures. For purposes of this Public License, simply making modifications authorized by this Section 2(a)(4) never produces Adapted Material.

   5. __Downstream recipients.__

       A. __Offer from the Licensor – Licensed Material.__ Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License.

       B. __Additional offer from the Licensor – Adapted Material.__ Every recipient of Adapted Material from You automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Adapted Material under the conditions of the Adapter’s License You apply.

       C. __No downstream restrictions.__ You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material.

   6. __No endorsement.__ Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be construed as permission to assert or imply that You are, or that Your use of the Licensed Material is, connected with, or sponsored, endorsed, or granted official status by, the Licensor or others designated to receive attribution as provided in Section 3(a)(1)(A)(i).

b. ___Other rights.___

   1. Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise.

   2. Patent and trademark rights are not licensed under this Public License.

   3. To the extent possible, the Licensor waives any right to collect royalties from You for the exercise of the Licensed Rights, whether directly or through a collecting society under any voluntary or waivable statutory or compulsory licensing scheme. In all other cases the Licensor expressly reserves any right to collect such royalties.

### Section 3 – License Conditions.

Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions.

a. ___Attribution.___

   1. If You Convey the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

       A. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:

         i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);

         ii. a copyright notice;

         iii. a notice that refers to this Public License;

         iv. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;

         v. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;

       B. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and

       C. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.

   2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Convey the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.

   3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.

b. ___ShareAlike.___

In addition to the conditions in Section 3(a), if You Convey Adapted Material You produce, the following conditions also apply.

1. The Adapter’s License You apply must be this same Public License, or a later version.

2. You must include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, the Adapter's License You apply. You may satisfy this condition in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Convey Adapted Material.

3. You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, Adapted Material that restrict exercise of the rights granted under the Adapter's License You apply.

### Section 4 – Sui Generis Database Rights.

Where the Licensed Rights include Sui Generis Database Rights that apply to Your use of the Licensed Material:

a. for the avoidance of doubt, Section 2(a)(1) grants You the right to extract, reuse, reproduce, and Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database;

b. if You include all or a substantial portion of the database contents in a database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights, then the database in which You have Sui Generis Database Rights (but not its individual contents) is Adapted Material, including for purposes of Section 3(b); and

c. You must comply with the conditions in Section 3(a) if You Share all or a substantial portion of the contents of the database.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 4 supplements and does not replace Your obligations under this Public License where the Licensed Rights include other Copyright and Similar Rights.

### Section 5 – Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability.

a. __Unless otherwise separately undertaken by the Licensor, to the extent possible, the Licensor offers the Licensed Material as-is and as-available, and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the Licensed Material, whether express, implied, statutory, or other. This includes, without limitation, warranties of title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, absence of latent or other defects, accuracy, or the presence or absence of errors, whether or not known or discoverable. Where disclaimers of warranties are not allowed in full or in part, this disclaimer may not apply to You.__

b. __To the extent possible, in no event will the Licensor be liable to You on any legal theory (including, without limitation, negligence) or otherwise for any direct, special, indirect, incidental, consequential, punitive, exemplary, or other losses, costs, expenses, or damages arising out of this Public License or use of the Licensed Material, even if the Licensor has been advised of the possibility of such losses, costs, expenses, or damages. Where a limitation of liability is not allowed in full or in part, this limitation may not apply to You.__

c. The disclaimer of warranties and limitation of liability provided above shall be interpreted in a manner that, to the extent possible, most closely approximates an absolute disclaimer and waiver of all liability.

### Section 6 – Term and Termination.

a. This Public License applies for the term of the Copyright and Similar Rights licensed here. However, if You fail to comply with this Public License, then Your rights under this Public License terminate automatically.

b. Where Your right to use the Licensed Material has terminated under Section 6(a), it reinstates:

   1. automatically as of the date the violation is cured, provided it is cured within 30 days of Your discovery of the violation; or

   2. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor.

   For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations of this Public License.

c. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licensor may also offer the Licensed Material under separate terms or conditions or stop distributing the Licensed Material at any time; however, doing so will not terminate this Public License.

d. Sections 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 survive termination of this Public License.

### Section 7 – Other Terms and Conditions.

a. The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed.

b. Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.

### Section 8 – Interpretation.

a. For the avoidance of doubt, this Public License does not, and shall not be interpreted to, reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this Public License.

b. To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions.

c. No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor.

d. Nothing in this Public License constitutes or may be interpreted as a limitation upon, or waiver of, any privileges and immunities that apply to the Licensor or You, including from the legal processes of any jurisdiction or authority.

> The text of this Public License is dedicated to the public domain under the [CC0 Public Domain Dedication](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode).

gugalcrom123: 💬 talk / 🗳️ contribs / 🖼️ uploads 13:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no explicit ban on them, but custom licenses are highly discouraged, especially if they have a ShareAlike provision, because that means that they cannot be remixed with images under a standard ShareAlike license such as CC-BY-SA.

Can you explain in plain English what the difference between this license and CC-BY-SA is? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It allows the use of the file without attribution as long as you're not intentionally sharing copies, only displaying it. gugalcrom123: 💬 talk / 🗳️ contribs / 🖼️ uploads 20:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't need this custom license, then, because you are trying to make it more permissive than the default. You can just give it the CC-BY-SA along with an additional statement that the attribution requirement is waived under the circumstances you describe. (Any statements that restrict a CC license are not allowed and have no legal validity, but as the copyright holder you can always grant additional permissions outside of the license.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If you plan to use it a lot, you can make a custom template that contains {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}, followed by your waiver.

On the other hand, this doesn't strike me as a great idea. Almost any use on the Internet is likely to be copied, regardless of the intent of the person who poss it, and you could easily find your image attributed in good faith by a third party to someone who merely intended to use it. And if their intent is to distribute, then they will accidentally have run afoul of your license. - Jmabel ! talk 23:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

company pictures

Hi. For an article about the Skynex Air Defence System on the german Wikipedia I recently stumbled about a brochure of the manufacturer Rheinmetall Air Defence Systems AG. I emailed them asking if I can use the pictures inside the publication in a Wikipedia article and they agreed. In addition they´ve sent me higher resolution pictures of the ones they used.

As I´m mainly doing World War 2 articles with licence-free or -expired pictures I do not really know which licence I should use for the Rheinmetall pictures. Yours Mastertom211 (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mastertom211: Sorry, but from what you are saying this shouldn't be on Commons, at least not as things stand. You don't have a free license. You have permission to use these in a particular context (and, further, I don't believe the German Wikipedia will accept them on that basis either).

Commons hosts only files that are either (1) in the public domain or (2) have a free license that allows anyone to reuse the image and includes allowing derivative works and use in commercial publications (though it is OK to have non-copyright limitations such as personality rights or trademark). - Jmabel ! talk 16:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thx, this is near to my own thoughts. Yours Mastertom211 (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mastertom211: Please ask them to send permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 05:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Outdated

"You want a picture of Mickey Mouse, but of course you can't just scan it in. [...] The reason why you can't upload photographs of such figures is that they are considered as derivative works." I think we can understand why this is now slightly out-of-date. I don't know how to rephrase it to clarify that post-1928 versions of Mickey are unallowed, though, without sounding too technical. ObserveOwl (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Update to Bart Simpson? - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel@ObserveOwl how about Bugs Bunny or Tom and Jerry? For sure these famous characters are still under deceased cartoonists' copyrights, even their original appearances. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It was changed about a month ago to "Bart Simpson", which I think is well enough known, though I'd have no problem with Bugs Bunny. I'm not sure Tom and Jerry are as widely known. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Both Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry have only about a decade to go in the US; Bart Simpson has a lot more life. Also Tom and Jerry (Van Beuren) is in the public domain, and even if only animation geeks who know the cat and mouse duo have heard of them, it's a little bit ambiguous anyway.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sort-of late reply, but I think the current example is future-proof enough to be listed (Bart was created in 1987, was given his modern appearance by 1990, and his original creator is still alive), and therefore won't be public domain until likely the 22nd century. Xeroctic (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment: Assume “really old, scratchy black and white photos” are public domain

This section contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

US copyright

Hello, an Italian Wikipedian asked me about this U.S. Coast Guard's document: does PD-USGov-whatever apply to this? -- Blackcat 14:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Coast guard is a Federal Agency so yes it'd be PD-USGov, but with the caviet that I couldnt load the pdf to read it as there may be text/images/diagrams within that are copyright of a third party. Same issue we have slides from Wikimedia events when the author uses a copyright image. Gnangarra 14:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sir,

How I can be sure about it? I mean, the USGC's report is 42 years old. It's possible that the images mentioned in the report are no longer protected by copyrights.

Thank you Moloch1982 (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Anything that was more-or-less current and copyrighted in the U.S. 42 years ago (1982) would still be copyrighted now. The only way something would have gone out of copyright in the U.S. that was under copyright in 1982 is if (1) it was first published before 1929 or (2) it was published 1954-1963 and its copyright was not renewed. So unless they were using old copyrighted material, the intervening 42 years are not relevant. - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, I got it, by the way from the USGC's report I'd want to extract some conceptual scheme of the mobile offshore drilling unit. Those scheme are usefull to catch better the descriction of the events. The platform's desing is obsolete and from the scheme it's not possible to infer anything about the builiding process. Moloch1982 (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Or it's {{PD-US-1978-89}}, since there is no copyright notice. I would just use {{PD-USGov}} (or both licenses). There is one photo, which is not credited, which may or may not come from the Coast Guard but it's probably no-notice anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, these questions are better asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. This is no longer a general question forum but just a talk page for Commons:Licensing. There are still some who watch this page but you'll get more eyes at the village pump. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)