Need to both show complexity of copyright situation as well as straightforward information to end-user on usability of image
Public domain is a status, cc-by-... is a license, we need both + what about rightsstatements.org declarations?
Attribution is important (even if it's legally not required)
Strong connection with authorship
we need publication date besides creation dates (copyright relies on publication date, and in special situations creation date)
we need copyrightholder besides author
'attributed as' how to deal with that? 'author name string' author name string (P2093)? or new property? author name string (P2093) will also be used for the normal names as mentoned, attribution names will differ. Better to have a specific attribution property
Restrictions
Portrait rights, that is a right for the depicted persons, how could we model that: 'depicts': qid/unknown and qualifier for rights?
Could we lnk a law or UN-treaty to a certain subject and in that way notify a user if that subject is depicted?
We could use 'depicts' that links to wikidata. In wikidata there could be a property that links to certain restrictions
Swaziki symbol, trademark etc property 'usage restriction' in WIkidata, so we move the information out of Commons
License review
Start with Creative Commons licenses, PD-licenses are difficult because template information is complex
I think we should follow approach outlined in d:Help:Copyrights. I think it covers many PD situations, especially for laws related to {{PD-old-100}} and similar cases. I began working on US copyrights by creating d:Wikidata:Hirtle chart (wikidata version of Commons:Hirtle chart), but I do not think we have wikidata items for all relevant cases. May be we need few dozen items to be used by determination method or standard (P459) which should be named something like "Meets Hirtle chart requirements (row x)" where x is a number 1 to 59. We will also need to eventually create items for determination methods fot over thousand country specific PD templates we have on Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarekt: thanks for your response. The whole PD part is going to be so much fun and a lot of work.
I would add license as a qualifier of copyright status (P6216)->copyrighted (Q50423863), so if image is copyrighted in one jurisdiction and PD in another than you can have 2 P6216 with qualifiers to explain it. Also if copyright changes, like when someone switches from CC-BY to CC0 than you can have multiple P6216 with different licenses and dates. By the way There might be confusion if CC0 works are copyrighted or PD. I think they are legally copyrighted and released under conditions which make them defacto PD, but that might be confusing. --Jarekt (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also if copyright changes, like when someone switches from CC-BY to CC0 than you can have multiple P6216 with different licenses and dates.
That can also be done with multiple top-level P275 statements no? Also, if the qualifiers apply to the license (more than to the copyrighted status), then as you can only have one 'level' of qualifiers it makes more sense to have P275 at top level statement, and qualifiers to it − no ? Jean-Fred (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jean-Frédéric. Besides that I prefer direct statements over qualifiers because otherwise we can't qualify it with things like custom attribution text.
We don't need to set the first line because even public domain or CC0 are works protected by author rights. Then I disagree we need to specify source first. Why? We just need to specify the author of a photograph. The question for artworks will be how the model of depicts of depicts should work. Juandev (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What first line? I don't understand what you're trying to say. A work falls into the public domain after a certain amount of time. That means it's no longer covered by copyright (also called "author right" in some jurisdictions like the Netherlands). On Commons a file must always have a source so we also have to include this in the structured data. I'm not responding to the artwork part because that's out of scope if we're talking simple own work licensing. Multichill (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been already using the license for works and I have figured out, Wikidata does not have regional variants. Do we want regional variants of Creative Commons licenses? Can we set variants as qualifiers? Juandev (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a picture depicts multiple identical elements (e.g. several inscription plates), a series ordinal (P1545) qualifier should be used in copyright license (P275) and related statements
author name string (P2093) qualifiers can be used to specify the attribution (credit line) for use (unless we want a new "attribution" property)
I think we should start on what is copyright. From my perspective, we have a copyright law and copyright clause. The first one does not interest us, the second is in fact kind of additional information to the license used of how to handle the work. As these additional conditions are created by the user, it's hard to cover them by structured data. Or what you think the copyright is? Juandev (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having another look at this. I don't think we need references to model what we're doing now. You're basically duplicating the source field. Anyone who wants to verify the license can have a look at the source, just like now with wikitext. I don't agree with the removing the top level copyright license (P275) statement. This is the license under which it was made available. We choose to override that based on public art, that's why public domain (Q19652) is prominent and you shouldn't make copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423) prominent.
Let's get 95% of the files sorted out before we worry about the last 5%? I'm trying to find a balance between not too complicated and completeness.
Multichill, I was thinking about the reference because on Wikidata a claim like that would require a reference. I agree that most of the time it would overlap with the source and perhaps we would not need it, but sometimes it does not. However I am digressing, so lets stick to 95% of the files and worry about the rest latter. The idea behind using copyright license (P275) as a qualifier is to link it to specific copyright status (P6216) statement, since copyright license (P275) does not make sense when applied to copyright status (P6216)="public domain". In d:Help:Copyrightscopyright license (P275) is only used as qualifier. I am OK with using it at the top level, when we have a single copyright status (P6216) statement (probably great majority of the files on Commons), but when we switch to multiple ones we should switch to wikidata model. I do not think we should create the 3rd variant. --Jarekt (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. CC0 files are still copyrighted. CC0 is defined as "No Rights Reserved", for public domain there is the Public Domain Mark. [1] --GPSLeo (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice philosophical debate. Something is copyrighted, cc0 is applied and effectively putting it in the public domain. So are we modeling the strict status or the effective status in copyright status (P6216)? Because our aim is re-users I'm leaning towards effective status. Multichill (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should ask the WMF legal team. They will know if these files are public domain by the CC0 legalcode and the Berne Convention. If the file is not really public domain (Q19652) but also not fully copyrighted (Q50423863) we maybe need a new item for this. Like an item for "declared as public domain" or "no rights reserved" --GPSLeo (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For institutions this is not clear. A museum should actively label a copyrighted work with a CC0 license in their administration with a right holder. Off course filters in Commons and Google should combine both CC0 and public domain when querying but we shouldn't mix this. In the Netherlands we had several occassions that a government switched licenses and in fact dual licensed their works. We had national archives that switched from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY to CC0, and we have the Dutch Royal House that switched from CC0 to a more restricted form. Off course that is not possible officially, but we should be able to administer those changes with the license property. --Hannolans (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that CC0 doesnt wave the moral rights: "Second, the laws of some jurisdictions don't allow authors and copyright owners to waive all of their own rights, such as moral rights" (https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ), so it is only public domain for reproduction, not for all modifications and uses. Note that we are not talking about photographs only, also about music, software, design and buildings. --Hannolans (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that's where the fallback license kicks in. See my comment below, but with the CC0 you can do all the modifications and uses that you want. If you follow the logic you are arguing for, then if you apply a CC BY in jurisdictions that don't allow for waiving the moral rights (that might include not only attribution but also integrity), then in theory you wouldn't be allowed to modify a work if it has a CC BY because the law says that you can't waive your moral rights, that include the integrity of the work. And this is not the case. If you apply a CC BY then the downstream re-user can most certainly remix the work. And, in any case, the work of modelling shouldn't be to offer an interpretation of what the re-user can or can't do but rather be a descriptive status of the item itself. It's up to the re-user to figure out what he/she is entitled to do with the work. Scann (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moral rights do accept modifications and exist in copyrighted works. Moral rights is for example that even if a sculpture is CC0 you're not allowed to demolish it, even if you are the owner of that work, without contacting the creator, or edit a speech in such a way that it becomes a hate speech. It is important to have a legal status (copyright status), and a license or waiver that describes what you as a re-user can do with it. I do think there is a difference between European Law and US law regarding PD. --Hannolans (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, CCO does not have to mean that every part of the work is public domain. Within a video the video itself might be CC0 but some music or fragments not. In the CC0-license that is legal. Video platforms have that situation for videos. --Hannolans (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, I'd say that you also check the CC0 PDM comparison chart to understand the differences between both, it's always useful. In terms of what the CC0 is, technically speaking is not fully a license, it's a waiver. But it acts as a "fallback license" in case the waiver can't be fully applied bc of legal restrictions. So in those cases it doesn't matter whether the law of your country says that "moral rights can't be waived", that's when the license kicks in into effect. See more at the CC0 FAQ. Given that, if it's possible, I'd say that the copyright status should be: "waived", and the determination method should be "dedicated to the public domain by the copyright holder". By saying that is "dedicated", we also maintain some of the spirit of the legal code that underlies the CC0, that has a very strong vision around the public interest. Lastly, it doesn't matter if some portions of the content aren't covered by the CC0, for example in the cases of video. You could do a full video using public domain content and put a copyright license to it, and that wouldn't affect the underlying status of the works you're using. In this case, you could lawfully use copyrighted content and then release your whole work under a CC0, with the caveat that "except where otherwise noted, this work is under a CC0". Where otherwise noted = where you're using (c) content. Lastly, works that are under the public domain under a CC0 are different from works that are in the public domain under a certain law (jurisdiction based). The Berne Convention has nothing to do here, since it only establishes minimum terms for protection (per @GPSLeo: comment). Another important aspect is that licenses are irrevocable, per @Hannolans: comment of institutions changing their licensing conditions. If you can get a record that at some point in time they used a less restrictive license and then they decided to change, then your use is lawful, and they can't prevent you from using the work in the terms established by the license. That's basically the reason why Wikimedia Commons can store all those Pixabay images even when Pixabay no longer uses CC licenses. I don't know if this is useful at all in terms of how to model the property, but hope it helps. Scann (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, at least in the Netberlands, the moral rights can't be waved or transferred ('onvervreemdbaar want onlosmakelijk verbonden aan de persoonlijkheid van de auteur of uitvoerend kunstenaar, en diens eer en goede naam.' https://www.muziekenrecht.nl/morele-rechten). It's not that the license then kicks in, our legislation always let's you have the moral rights until your death. This is also in Germany I believe.
But that's a different problem. That's why the CC0 is acting as a fallback license. The reasoning would be the following: "I'm waiving all my rights to the extent possible given by law. However, if the law doesn't allow me to waive all my rights, then I offer you this fallback license", that in practice would work like a CC BY, since following the reasoning that I made above, in some jurisdictions the right of integrity is a crucial part of moral rights, but despite that no-one has ever claimed that CC BY is not applicable. Does it make sense? Scann (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding public domain and CC0 and licensed works: its interesting legally. we can't claim a CC0 to be public domain without checking all the content manually. To my understanding, we should only apply public domain for Commons if all the rights are public domain, whereas CC0 can be applied whe only a part is PD.
No. I think this is incorrect, Hanno. Works can have copyrighted works inside them and still be CC licensed. You don't need to check all the content manually, I don't see why you would do that. Scann (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thast is true for CC0 works, but not true if we convert CC0 to 'public domain' as a copyright status. It we claim 'public domain' we, at least in Commons state that everything in that work is public domain. CC0 is not PD --Hannolans (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the important thing to remember: CC0 is not the "Public Domain". Copyright is not conferred by using alicense; it exists by applicable law upon the creation of the work. What public domain means is that the domain of the applicable law's license has expired and/or the work is not eligible to be copyrighted for another reason, such as having been created by a government entity in the discharge of their normal duties. Since this puts the work outside of the private domain (i.e., copyright), it becomes the public domain.
That said, the CC0 license does not "release" the work to the public domain because you can't waive your rights in that way in most jurisdictions. Some countries, in fact, do not have copyright expiration that are consistent with public domain law, so the CC0 license instead specifically reserves no rights under the license. Go try searching the CCo legal code for the word "domain". It's not there. Instead, you find this: "To the greatest extent permitted by, but not in contravention of, applicable law, Affirmer hereby overtly, fully, permanently, irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and surrenders all of Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights and associated claims and causes of action, whether now known or unknown (including existing as well as future claims and causes of action), in the Work...".
Bringing here what Sarah Pearson (Legal Counsel at CC) shared in the CC's Slack channel: "Given the purpose and design of CC0, I think it makes sense to describe the status as public domain, and then explain the mechanism (i.e. dedicated to the public domain by the creator). From the perspective of a reuser, CC0 content is designed to operate just like content that is in the public domain for other reasons, for example, if copyright expired. In addition to expired copyrights, I think the public domain also includes works that fall outside the scope of copyright, and works whose authors have relinquished their copyright. You are right that there are some jurisdictions where dedication to the public domain isn't possible, in which case CC0 operates as a license with no conditions. But I wonder how often that applies? My sense is that it is a small number of jurisdictions, but I don't know for sure.". Scann (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, every country with moral rights, I guess most of the European countries (at least Italy, Germany, France, Netherlands etc). --Hannolans (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. That's why I initially suggested the following: "Given that, if it's possible, I'd say that the copyright status should be: "waived", and the determination method should be "dedicated to the public domain by the copyright holder"." I don't think it's copyright protected, and it's not public domain either. That's why it should be "waived". Scann (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it is certain that in certain countries it can be waived legally, we could change the status for those countries to public domain. We have probably the same situation for works of the federal government of the united states. Those works are public domain in the us, but copyrighted abroad and in the Netherlands copyright protected but because of article 15b of the national law as governmental material free to re-use without restrictions. --Hannolans (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sweden also have moral rights like those Hannolans are referring to. So even if it is a small number of jurisdictions, it's clearly not universal. Ainali (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding this new section to discuss this issue, because this is a different problem from the "philosophical debate". --Scann (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
About the license revoking, we have several works deleted her at Commons of the Royal House as they revoked their license. We also had a situation that a public broadcaster revoked their license of CC-BY. We should administer each license seperately with qualifiers like a start and end time and also try to administer the date and link of the license and probably OTRS and so on, and not use the license property itself as a qualifier as we can't apply qualifiers to a qualifier. --Hannolans (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that's a different problem: that's Commons admin (and well, the Royal House too) not understanding the CC licenses, which doesn't affect the fact that the CC licenses are indeed irrevocable. Those are two different problems. The license doesn't have "an end date". I'd consider that improper, because licenses can't be revoked, and therefore they don't have an "end date". If anything, the "end date" would be the moment in which the work enters the public domain, not the (wrongful) decision of an institution to remove the CC license logo from the work.--Scann (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow up, you could potentially have that as a "stated in" that points to a) point in time, b) website/terms of use (with proper link to the wayback machine) and/or c) OTRS permission. Scann (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Something else that worries me here, @Hannolans: , is that you can't override the official interpretation that CC has over its licenses (that are indeed irrevocable) because of the wrongdoings by Commons admins or some institutions. This is not a modelling problem, and it's not up to debate that the licenses aren't revocable. The licenses can't be revoked. Period. Therefore, modelling the information of the licenses as if they could be revoked is going against the way in which CC interprets the licenses, and what the licenses indeed are. Don't try to solve what seems to be an interpretation problem by Commons admins and institutions through a modelling question. This should be part of an integral training on the CC licenses, but you can't add qualifiers to the licenses that aren't part of their intrinsic characteristics.Scann (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that concept, but when they claim later on they are not sure if they are the copyright holder, we use the precaution principle here and revoke the license and remove the work. We also had that with Nowness, they published works of their editors as CC-BY but revoked the license as they said to Commons they don't have all the rights. I am not sure how we should model this, probably with disputed by as we did with Anne Frank, but I'm sure it can't be done if we have the license as a qualifier, we should be able to use qualificers and sources for the license. That is the practical reason I am against having the license itself just as a qualifier--Hannolans (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So we had a call with @Hannolans: to chat about this. What Hanno is bringing here is a different set of problems. Just to be clear, there are two scenarios here that are different from one another: 1) institution, platform or user decides to remove the CC license; 2) as in the case of Nowness, they didn't have the copyright in the first place to begin with. Examples of scenario one are this video by Nowness, any of the images from Pixabay, (see one example here). Examples of scenario two is this video, where Nowness clearly doesn't have the rights to license a song by Miley Cyrus, so therefore they don't have the rights to apply a CC license anyway. So this applies to all the six CC licenses + CC0, but basically you should have some qualifier that states the current status of the license: "removed", "in force", and maybe "breached", to describe all the different scenarios, with "removed" meaning that the original licensor removed the CC license from the website, but that doesn't change the fact that the work is under a CC license; "in force" to clarify that the license is still valid, and "breached" to signal that there the licensor didn't have all the rights that he/she needed to have in order to license the material. The remaining question is whether you ask for proof of the latter or not, and what happens when institutions might change their mind and make a statement of "breached" even when that's not clearly the case. This should also have a qualifier that says "stated in", the moment of time, and probably a URL to the wayback machine to make sure that there's a record of the license for the moment in which it was posted. Additionally, we might want to make sure to model correctly things such as the statement around Pixabay changing their license or the license change template. Scann (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally on Wikidata we just adjust rank to "depreciated" and add reason for deprecated rank (P2241). Perhaps we can do the same on Commons? I am not sure SDC team managed to turn on ranks yet, but we should be doing it the same way we would on Wikidata. --Jarekt (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is legalwise not public domain (CC0), there is still a right holder. Off course it is the intention, but the law has no option to put it in the public domain. This will give even more confusion for cultural institutions in their administration as a licence administration and a right holder is still needed in this situation. --Hannolans (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PD-self is also not public domain as it is not valid in European countries. We only accept it on Commons because in the US it is valid. --Hannolans (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference is that if I release image as {{Cc-0}} I am still the copyright holder, but I grant anybody right to do anything with the file. if I release image as {{PD-self}} than I am attempting to perform legal operation declaring myself as no-longer-the-copyright-holder. That operation might not be allowed in some jurisdiction and in general has a weak legal basis. I do not think {{PD-self}} is a license. --Jarekt (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I just made this item in Wikidata, we could change it to read "copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder" I guess --Schlurcher (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarekt: thanks for sorting this out. I consider CC-Zero now solved and thus have implemented this conslusion into my bot. Regarding, PD-self etc. I will wait for a conclusion. --Schlurcher (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarekt: {{PD-self}} is a license, just a really crappy home brew one so released into the public domain by the copyright holder (Q98592850) reflects that. Don't forget that in quite a few countries (like mine), it's impossible to release copyright, the only thing you can do is license it. I would use the same item for all these templates because the concept (and the wording on the templates) is the same.
We should probably encourage existing users to switch away from PD-self to CC0 and deprecate it for new uploads like we did with {{GFDL}}. {{Attribution}} is another one of those home brew templates that should probably get the same treatment. Good job on the documentation. Multichill (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should retire {{PD-self}} other 2 are harder to retire as they are mostly used to bring to commons images published either on other projects or on the web. I will finish the documentation and alter example images so they acrually can be used as examples. I also think we should also fix the files we currently have with bad license info (as you mentioned in the original post) and fix them. Thanks for reviving this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm already in the process of adjusting the files identified with the query to the newly aligned model. I will complete this this week and check the query again after some time, when the data refreshed. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do we model files of music, where the original is in the public domain, and then a new recording is made which is released under a free license? Example. Ainali (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ainali, copyright license (P275) is fine when applied to the whole body, when a file has a single copyright statement, which should be majority of "own work" files using {{Information}} template. It does not work in case of more complicated statements with multiple copyright status (P6216) statements. See more at [[Commons_talk:Structured_data/Modeling/Copyright#Modeling_of_{{PD-Art}}]] above. --Jarekt (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. We did have determined by GLAM institution and stated at its website for a while, so I used it. My thinking was that I want to emphasize "determined by GLAM institution" part as I do not want people uploding files they determined that have no known copyright restrictions. Since "no known copyright restrictions" seem to be only associated with flickr commons we could create item for "determined by GLAM institution and stated at flickr commons" or more general "determined by GLAM institution and stated at the source". --Jarekt (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone! I like the approach above. I'd say splitting the data in two statements makes sense. I think it has huge potential to make adding artwork license tags for a lot of files that don't have any much easier. How could we move this forward? --Marsupium (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the current status of the copyright modeling page, and I notice it doesn't mention Freedom of Panorama yet? I am working on public art a lot (both Wikidata and SDC) and I could apply FoP-related SDC statements on Commons quite often. I could start doing this in batch.
We do have copyright exemption (P7152) for a while already, with a few examples listed there. Do we agree on the modeling in those examples and if so, can it be added to the modeling page?
I'm taking the freedom to ping @Jarekt and @Multichill - I have the impression that SDC data modeling conventions for copyright are well established and widely used. But copyright information, at this moment, still needs to be duplicated in the Wikitext infobox template, for instance as follows:
== {{int:license-header}} ==
{{cc-by-sa-4.0}}
Would it be possible (at least for the simplest of cases/licenses) to have this data load in infobox templates using Lua as well, so that basic information templates could include a copyright section rather like this:
=={{int:license-header}}==
{{license}}
Or even more simple - that a bare {{Information}} template will auto-include the license?
Having this would e.g. make the upload process via batch upload tools like OpenRefine a lot easier for the uploader, as they'd have to deal with less complex Wikitext and can focus on correctly modeled SDC!
Cheering from my end! We really need this to move away from managing both presentation and data in wikitext across all of Commons. Abbe98 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinster: Please note that a first try to have all structured data loaded to the file description via an fully fleched template has been implemented already. Please have a look at {{Structured Data}}. However, mass adoption of this approach was never reached and even the demo implementation shows a Lua-Error. I've tried to use this approach, but it is too restrictive and a lot of cases (see User:Schlurcher#SDC cannot be handled by this approach). So, learning from this, I would highly recommend against an catch-all approach to have the Information template or any other to auto-include the license. I'm fully supportive to enhance {{License}}. This currently seems to be a layout shell. If it could be re-purposed such that an direct use uses SDC licences and copyright statements, that would be great. --Schlurcher (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DaxServer: that's due to the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (Q19068220). From the legal code: If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied;...... . Newer versions don't have this problem. Multichill (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=912492666){kind=link}
