Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/06

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

Process for permission to upload photo

I am working on a Wiki bio. The bio's subject gave me a formal professional headshot to use. I know there is a process to document permission and I have seen similar questions on forums with the issue resolved and pictures uploaded. In those, people said they got the permission paperwork required by Wikipedia and a ticket number. I need to know that process so I can upload this picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newsmel (talk • contribs) 00:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Newsmel: the instructions and a sample permission letter are at COM:OTRS. The email should be sent by the copyright holder, who is normally the photographer; if instead the subject acquired the rights, evidence of same should be provided.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

What license should be used with this text?

Is the following text on the source website enough to justify a cc-by-4.0 license? "© Anyone may, without charge or request for permission, reproduce this photo in whole or in part."

These four files were uploaded by user Libby Adder and the source URL for all four have that text under the image: File:Michael Coteau OfficialHeadshot 020.jpg, File:HarinderMalhi_OfficialHeadshot_010.jpg, File:Charles_Sousa_OfficialHeadshot_063.jpg, File:JoeDickson_MPP_OfficialHeadshot_Ajax_001.jpg.

If that text is OK, I'll be happy to add more images from other candidate websites. // sikander { talk } 01:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That text does not count as a valid license as pertains to Wikimedia Commons. Most importantly, the statement doesn’t allow for modifications to the images, which is an integral part of acceptable Commons licenses. The license also needs to be perpetual and non-revocable and specifically allow for commercial use.
I’d suggest contacting the owner of the website and asking them if they’d consider replacing that text with a specific Creative Commons license, like CC BY 4.0 or even CC0, depending on what rights they want to reserve. clpo13(talk) 02:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Are any of these drawings fit to be uploaded to commons?

Hello. Is there any of these photos (at the bottom: Foto Galeri section) that we can upload to commons? I thought that the 1st one at least can be uploaded since it doesn't seem to be a work of art that requires copy rights protection. I didn't find the original source for any of the others. Any help please? @Dyolf77: and others --باسم (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, all those pictures have copyright. What we need to know is the author(s) (are they dead more than 70 years ago ? Then it is Public Domain). There is a signature I can't properly decipher on the first drawing (see http://admin.biyografya.com/_docs/photos/6235f1b6d2ae3e65ea41891a91c8dadf.jpg for a hi-res image), idenrifying the author should be possible. The second one has two watermarks and as such is not allowed on Commons. The 3rd picture looks like it could be old enough to be in the Public domain, but verification is needed. Same for the next picture with the citation. Nr 5 and 6 are recent photographs and require the explicit authorization of the photographer before being uploaded to Commons. All the other images are book covers and unless you can prove the author of the book (and the illustrator) died before 1948, none of them are acceptable on Commons. Do not hesitate if you have any questions. Skimel (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Skimel: i found the name of the book's author and its year of publication in Turkey (source country). check here. Author was called «Bezmi Nusret Kaygusuz» (died in 1961), the book is entiteld «Şeyh Bedreddin» and was first published in 1957---باسم (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Full coverباسم (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
A book comes into the public domain 70 years after the death of its author (both in Turkey and in the USA). Therefore, you need to wait until 2031 to upload the book cover to Commons. Skimel (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
No! US copyright law is entirely different; see Commons:Licensing#Material_in_the_public_domain. The short version is that pre-1978 works come into the public domain in the US 95 years from when they were published. This book cover will be PD in the US in 2053.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you all for your help. Bestباسم (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 00:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Frédéric Taddeï Thinkerview.jpg

Can an Admin please review this image or file a DR here. The youtube source is indeed CC BY 3.0 but there is an explicit statement at the source saying the terms of use is "(CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)" So only a copyright expert should review this image. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Leoboudv: I tagged it as a copyvio because "License review NOT passed: Author is specifying "CC BY-NC-SA 4.0", and I believe that more than the YouTube CC-BY license."   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: Thank You for your help. That image file was very tricky because a reviewer usually just looks at the youtube license and misses the separate CC BY NC notice. I think some reviewers might have simply passed the image file. I didn't want to touch this file at all after I saw two competing licenses on it. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
@Leoboudv: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

permission to upload audio file

I placed five audio files on the page "Katharine von Bora," but they were removed by an editor because they lacked permission.

I had already emailed to <permissions-commons@wikimedia.org> the suggested form to post audio files by another author, stating that I was that author's appointed repreentative. How can I "prove that the author gives permission for the license" so that the audiofiles can be reinstated on the web page? Moetapeega (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Moetapeega: Please have the author send the permission.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Sûreté du Québec Flag.svg

This file is licensed as "own work" under a "cc-by-sa-3.0" license. The file's description says that the Commons image File:Sûreté du Québec.svg was used to create the flag image, but there is no such Commons file. I checked to see if it might have been something which had been deleted from Commons for some reason, but could not find anything in the log about the file being deleted. There is, however, a non-free file with the same name on English Wikipedia, so it is possible that the uploader mistook the non-free file for a file hosted by Commons. If that's the case though, the Commons file cannot be keot since it would be a derivative of the non-free file. The question I have is whether the non-free logo needs to be non-free. That is the only part of the flag file which seems complex enough to be possibly protected by copyright; so, if the logo is actually PD, the flag can be kept and the logo moved to Commons. Can the logo be considered to be PD for any reason? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Verlustliste Offiziere Lambsheim 1795 JS.jpg (section)

Please check, and maybe correct, File:Verlustliste_Offiziere_Lambsheim_1795_JS.jpg#Licensing.
IMHO it's more likely that it's {{PD-old}}

("Dieses Werk ist gemeinfrei, weil seine urheberrechtliche Schutzfrist abgelaufen ist.")

instead of {{PD-self}}

("Ich, der Urheberrechtsinhaber dieses Werkes, veröffentliche es als gemeinfrei.")

as the original work is old enough and scaning has no Schöpfungshöhe. -80.133.96.163 17:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right, this can't be considered "own work". I've changed it to PD-old. De728631 (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have a copyright question regarding this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=6lRm-d6LtQQ. This is footage from 1944 made by the Royal Air Force Film Production Unit. As such, the original video is protected by Crown Copyright, with a 50 year duration. As such, I think the original video is the public domain and could be imported to Commons (correct me if I'm wrong). However, the Youtube uploader claims a copyright for "digital video image and sound restauration" (at the beginning of the video). But as far as I know, restauration doesn't create rights for something that is already in the Public Domain... Therefore, can I upload this video (or parts of it) ? thanks Skimel (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you are correct that such restoration does not create a new copyright. This is supported by the following extract is from a UK Government publication. This discusses images, but it is reasonable to conclude that it also applies to videos.
Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?

Simply creating a copy of an image won't result in a new copyright in the new item. However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases.

However, according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author's own 'intellectual creation'. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as 'original'. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.

'Copyright Notice: digital images, photographs and the internet', UK Intellectual Property Office, Nov 2015
It would be better to obtain these from a reliable source, such as the RAF Museum or the Imperial War Museum, to avoid the risk that a video has been misleadingly edited. It would also be better to have videos without overlays or watermarks, if you can find them. Verbcatcher (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your answer ! I have found another version of the video that matches the extract (bombing of Cézembre island, off Saint Malo). The uploader says he got the video from the Imperial War Museum, but copyfrauds it with a watermark and claims "All rights reserved"... we got a long way to secure public domain... Anyway, do you think it's fine to upload it ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3UTzrrfw_I Skimel (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that would be allowable. This might be more generally useful (unless we already have it), but you may be looking for film of a specific operation. This may be the same St Malo operation, but it very poor quality. It may be worth looking here: https://archive.org/details/movies Verbcatcher (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Determining a free image

Was considering adding a photo of Charles Elmer Hires. Based on his date of death in 1937, there isn’t a huge window for non-public domain photos. Found a picture here at the lower Merion Historical society. The note looks like the photo was taken in 1902 and would therefore be free. But there is also a small copyright notice attached. Not sure how to interpret and would appreciate a thought. TastyPoutine (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Some people put a copyright notice on digital reproductions, but that is almost certainly not valid in the U.S., and unlikely in other countries (see {{PD-Scan}} and {{PD-Art}}). For that one, it was published in a 1902 U.S. book, so it is {{PD-1923}} and is fine. There is a scan at https://archive.org/details/ldpd_9340120_000 (page 77); unsure if that is higher-resolution or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
copyfraud is widespread. institutions have difficulty letting go of the fools gold of reproduction rights. this is by no means the worst. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks for the guidance. TastyPoutine (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Gabrielle Suchon Portrait.pdf

This image is licensed as {{PD-old-70-1923}}, and it does seem quite old. However, it appears to come from a translation of the original work which was published in 2010 per en:File:Suchon portrait.pdf. The original work appears to have been anonymously created back when the original version of the book was first released, but I am curious as to whether to 2010 publication of the translated work affects the copyright status of the image. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The file page gives the date 1694, which is credible. In my view this image is allowed under {{PD-art}}, which says that The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". Verbcatcher (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The image seems to be 17th century, but the real problem is the file format. Images should not be uploaded as PDF. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Re-uploaded as JPEG (losslessly extracted): File:Gabrielle Suchon Portrait.jpg. --bjh21 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that bjh21. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Works by James Lynwood Palmer (1868–1941)

I came across File:Scuttle by james lynwood palmer.jpg, uploaded by Tigerboy1966 with an obviously invalid PD rationale. (The painting is signed, so the author is definitely not anonymous.) The author died in 1941, which is more than 70 years ago, so the painting is in the public domain in the source country ({{PD-old-70}}). But as required by Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law, a United States PD rationale is also needed. The painting is dated 1928, so {{PD-1923}} is out of the question. Any suggestions?

The same question also applies to:

I cleaned up File:Royal Lancer by James Lynwood Palmer.jpg, which is on the right side of 1923 according to the source. File:LordAnnaly MasterOf PytchleyHunt ByLynwoodPalmer.png and File:GoldenCorn ByLynwoodPalmer 1922.png require similar cleanup efforts.

—LX (talk, contribs) 19:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies to all concerned. I can only plead incompetence. I usually add pictures as a finishing touch/ afterthought to articles and should be more careful with PD rationales.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@LX: There is Category:Undelete in 2024.. except it should not be the file but the deletion request that gets categorized there. There is no DR yet though..
Licensing is infinitely complicated. {{PD-1996}} doesn't apply, {{PD-US-unpublished}} doesn't apply, {{PD-1923}} will maybe apply in a few years but exactly what "published" means is also stupidly complicated. The only way not to go batshit crazy is to just assume that whenever a work was created it was also published regardless of whether or not that's true. Otherwise many works will simply never enter the public domain. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
For the Scuttle one, it sounds like it was commissioned by King George V, so that is most likely Crown Copyright and {{PD-UKGov}}. Paintings for American clients (like Ambrose Clark) most likely were first published in the U.S., which could open up some other possibilities (but may need publication history). The Volodyovski horse died in 1911, and was an active racer 1900-1902, so the painting is most likely from the early 1900s. Whether published before 1923, harder to say. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 Comment I changed PD-old to PD-Art, added Category:James Lynwood Palmer, and Creator:James Lynwood Palmer. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
PD-1996 does apply, but if you do not like that use template:PD-US-no notice, signature does not count. and yes i have seen artworks with a (c). Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

PD-old vs. PD-Art

Hi, I would like opinions about using PD-old vs. PD-Art for old documents. I see at least 2 cases where there is a potential claim of "work of art". This doesn't really change the copyright status, but I think it is important to establish the best practice.

  1. Old maps: While modern maps are not considered works of art, for old maps, in many cases, some artistic work is included (e.g. File:Map-heart-054.jpg). Where is the limit?
  2. Heavily retouched pictures (e.g. File:Gandhi smiling R.jpg). This happens often in India, but there are certainly other cases.

Regards, Yann (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not use both? One can simply add {{PD-old|PD-Art}} to a medium and it would still be valid, if not all of it could be considered art then PD-old would cover those bits and PD-Art the other, in cases of heavily retouched photographs I would personally say that they're art, and in the case of old maps it would depend on the number of illustrations, how about maps of fictious areas such as those in Category:Maps showing the fictive Buenaventura River, should these all be considered to be "art" because the person drawing the maps decided to add something that doesn't exist? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
PD-Art should always be used with some parameters, and PD-old-70/100 is often the most appropriate. But PD-Art should not be used for pictures. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

YT, implicit or explicit license?

Hi, The source of this file specifies that the license is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Should we follow that or the implicit license CC-BY (Creative Commons Attribution license, reuse allowed)? See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Isabelle Saporta.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yann: I believe more specific license statements more than those limited choices allowed on YouTube.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Zrinka Bralo.jpg

Is this image free? The metadata names a female photographer and the extended metadata says the photo is copyrighted. The website does not have a license as far as I can see. If it is not free, please consider filing a DR as I am not familiar with the source website. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The license requires Commons:OTRS confirmation. Ruslik (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Fenella Fielding on her 90th Birthday.jpg

This image has no license version. Can one assume it is CC BY 3.0 and pass it? Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 10:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think since you posted this (indeed, while I was writing this reply), the page has been updated. It now specifies 3.0. --bjh21 (talk) 10:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Plymouth_2018.jpg

Hi, so I have created a collage for the city of Plymouth. I'm a newbie here and I've been asked to give source for the images used in the collage. However, I have taken these pictures myself and I don't know how to source it now. Thanks --Ebitart (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ebitart: The simplest approach would be to add a note to the "source" section indicating that you took all the photos yourself. Better would be for you to upload each of the source images (at the highest resolution you can) under their own names and then list them using {{Derived from}} in the "source" section. That way, they can all be used separately without someone having to extract them from your collage. --bjh21 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bjh21: Thank you very much, I have done this and I think it's sorted out now. --Ebitart (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ebitart: That's brilliant. --bjh21 (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: bjh21 (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Is appropriate sourcing needed for 2D public domain works?

I wish to upload images from Banknotes.com which was globally added to the SpamBlacklist after the owner of the website spamsite requested this because "the people of Wikipedia are stealing {their} images", however recently I found out that if you add "Nowiki"-tags to a blacklisted link that you can add it, for example I wish to upload images from https://www.banknotes.com/csa.htm of banknotes from the Confederate States of America which are all in the public domain and images like the one at https://www.banknotes.com/ew18.jpg do not contain any watermarks, since it's easy to bypass the SpamBlacklist and simply add spamlinks I want to know if this is unnecessary from my park and I simply don't have to attribute where the image came from as it's already in the public domain, or should I add the source using these "Nowiki"-tags? Adding these spamlinks might make the owner of Banknotes.com angry as they do not want to be linked from a Wikimedia project, however if I would upload PD-scans from their website (spamsite) and won't link to them could I receive legal threats from the owner? I know that they don't own the copyright but as they have a history about getting upset if we "steal their images" I wonder if I should use the links at all or simply state at source "the internet" however that could be seen as bad sourcing. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Also if I add links to Banknotes.com does it mean that I will then automatically get a COI to banknotes.com and do I have to note it somewhere on Commons? A request to have this website whitelisted has gone unanswered for months yet the images from the website are mostly PD and certainly educational. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You can use images from their website and just ignore them. Ruslik (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Merging templates about Indian government works

Hi, This is a request for comments and suggestions before merging templates about Indian government works. We now have {{GODL-India}}, with a much better legal back up than previous templates: {{Attribution-PIB-India}} (not used), {{Indian navy}} (used by thousands of files), and {{Attribution-IAF}} (used by a few files). So I suggest replacing these templates by {{GODL-India}}, and creating redirects. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Essay registered multiple times

I'm looking into the copyright status of an American essay.

  • It was originally published in several smaller pieces in small journals in the 1940s. I haven't been to the archives so I haven't ascertained whether these were published with a notice.
  • Those pieces were collected and published as a section of a book in 1946 and its copyright was renewed 28 years later
  • That same combined essay was published in a 1962 collection whose copyright was not renewed 28 years later

So while the 1962 book is in the public domain, would we not host it because an earlier version of one of its essays remains under copyright? Bonus: Would this change if the original publications of the pieces that would become the essay (see first bullet) were published without notice or otherwise not renewed? czar 12:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

If the original pieces were published without notices or not renewed then it follows that the essay is in public domain now. Ruslik (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0, on further inspection, it appears that some components of the essay were published for the first time in the 1946 book, whose copyright has been renewed, so the published-without-notice scenario no longer counts.
My question is the copyright status of the combined essay, as its 1946 appearance is still in copyright but its 1962 appearance is now in the public domain (not renewed). Specifically, whether we can host the 1962 book, given that one of its essays is still in copyright from an earlier appearance? czar 00:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Czar and Ruslik0: No, per COM:HIRTLE we cannot host the 1962 book, with a 1946 section published in the US from 1923 through 1963 with notice and a renewed copyright, until after 95 years after publication date, or after 1946+95=2041, on 1 January 2042.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Jeff G., I was aware of Hirtle and the math but still hope to read more about how US copyright works when an original text remains in copyright but a subsequent edition enters the public domain (whether the latter is subordinate to the former), if you know the legal term for this concept or have any links czar 14:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Czar: Think of it this way: the 1946 section is still copyrighted; the 1962 book is derivative of it and thus can't be entirely uploaded here until 2042 per COM:DW (unless we can get permission from Paul Goodman's heirs via OTRS).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
If the original pieces were published without notice or without renewal, they'd be PD, and the later publications would be PD to the extent they were unchanged; it seems quite likely a copyrightable pass was done where they were merged into one unified piece. A work has to be renewed once, 28 years after publication. The 1962 book would be in the public domain to the extent that it was free of any earlier copyrights; if the essay is separable, then it could be uploaded without that essay. Wikisource has a number of pulp magazines uploaded without certain works that were independently renewed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Can someone make the template for PD-BW-exempt?--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Good collection from the National Parliamentary Library of Georgia

Is this type of collection were copyright free, or is this kind of collection were all released into the public domain because of government publication? The pre-Soviet Georgian photographs are surely in the public domain, but I cannot assure for the photographs during the Soviet Georgia era.
This, that, and there surely shows how life was in Soviet Georgia, but unfortunately the work was published in the 1960s, and the copyright term for Georgia is 70 years, which means public domain for works before 1948.--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Trump and Merkel photograph from G7 meeting yesterday

File:German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks with U.S. President Donald Trump during the G7 Leaders Summit.jpg

I welcome feedback on copyright status and an original source for this photograph. I have used the standard PD-GermanGov template, but this only quotes the German copyright act Ch.5(1) rather than Ch.5(2). The latter section states that official Federal works are PD if they are released for state publicity, which this photograph everywhere attributed appears to be, however I have not found a verifiable source, only reuse. If there is a better template, please do change it. The photograph was released yesterday and has been massively reused by national newspapers world wide.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

PD-GermanGov is not applicable to images (only in German: de:Amtliches_Werk#Deutschland). The shot is obviously a typical "press photo", distributed by the federal government's PR department. Germany has nothing comparable to US PD-Gov. So, I would recommend you to request it for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
First publication seems to be this twitter news of the German government spokesman.
Finally, there is already a discussion about this shot, as it seems to be symbolic for this G7 meeting: [1] --Túrelio (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: The relevant text of Ch.5(2) at https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__5.html appears to be "(2) Das gleiche gilt für andere amtliche Werke, die im amtlichen Interesse zur allgemeinen Kenntnisnahme veröffentlicht worden sind, mit der Einschränkung, daß die Bestimmungen über Änderungsverbot und Quellenangabe in § 62 Abs. 1 bis 3 und § 63 Abs. 1 und 2 entsprechend anzuwenden sind." Google Translate says that is "(2) The same applies to other official works that have been published in the official interest for general information, with the restriction that the provisions on prohibition of change and reference in § 62 paragraph 1 to 3 and § 63 paragraph 1 and 2 accordingly to apply." That appears to be a restriction on derivative works, thus we cannot accept it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
DR raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:German Chancellor Angela Merkel speaks with U.S. President Donald Trump during the G7 Leaders Summit.jpg. An official English version would be helpful, especially if added to COM:CRT. I am not convinced that this is a legally enforceable ND restriction which can overrule the commonsense understanding of Gemeinfreiheit. A past legal case would be a great reference to apply. --Fæ (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
This is clearly a copyright violation. The German 'government works' exception virtually never applies to photographs. --Gnom (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Error

Hello!

I'm trying to create a page about this new Australian band Dirty Wolves, and every time I try to add a photo, the one that I took myself, an error pops out "We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera". I've got a bunch of photos and none of them gets added, always the same error.

Please, help. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoria Sedykh (talk • contribs) 09:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Victoria Sedykh: The filter you encountered prevents low-resolution uploads from newly registered users using the particular upload form that you used. The reason for this is that those overwhelmingly turn out to be copyright violations. If you did indeed personally create these photos, the expectation is that you should be able to provide a full-resolution version rather than the 1324×881, 720×720, 1080×748, 780×558, 453×810, 435×435 and 150×150 pixel versions that you tried to upload, which are resolutions more typical of files grabbed from the Internet. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Wget2.png license question

Hi, I noticed that File:Wget2.png looks like a screenshot where a desktop wallpaper shows through a transparent terminal emulator, but the wallpaper source is not discussed. Is it also covered under the author's LGPL? I feel like it should be mentioned separately from the text content of the screenshot. Thanks! Goldenshimmer (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell how to make the picture not embedded. If anyone knows how and wants to, feel free:) thx! Goldenshimmer (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This image can probably be replaced by File:Wget 1.13.4.png, which is clearer. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It may be so dimmed as to be de minimis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Lord hanuman singing bhajans AS.jpg

This file was originally uploaded in 2007, so maybe the way Commons verifies licensing over the years has changed since then. The file is licensed as {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} and it is "Copyrighted to Himalayan Academy Publications, Kapaa, Kauai, Hawaii. Licensed for Wikipedia under Creative Commons and requires attribution when reproduced." There is a link on the file's page which says permission can be found at en:User:Himalayan Academy Publications. "User:Himalayan Academy Publications" also contains a link to en:User:Satyanatha/Permission email,which looks like a permission email which was/could be sent to OTRS, but there's nothing there suggesting OTRS has verified the original copyright ownership license, etc. Moreover, the permission emails seem to user specific (i.e., permission granted to a particular user only) which is something Commons generally doesn't accept. There are quite a number of files uploaded by Special:Contributions/Anantashakti~commonswiki and all seem to be under the same license. Anantashakti~commonswiki hasn't edited since 2008 and User:Himalayan Academy Publications hasn't edited since December 2011, so I have no idea how to find out more about this from them. Is all this sufficient for Commons verification purposes, or do these files require fruther OTRS verification? -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I copied this to the OTRS noticeboard. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Grandfathered old files has a cutoff date of January 1, 2007. At that time the OTRS procedure was just getting going, and some users may have been unaware. I don't think the single-user aspect of the permission is a problem -- they are just authorizing that one account to make uploads, i.e. basically verifying that account, which is fine. The "automatically be licensed to Wikipedia under GFDL" part is harder -- I could read that either way as intended to be Wikipedia-only, or just an acknowledgement that it licensed globally under the GDFL while being uploaded to Wikipedia. They have also been here 10 years without apparent complaint that we have exceeded the license, etc. Not sure it's enough to worry about at this stage, unless we think we can get a clarification from the copyright owner. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Bassano image from NPG

Is there any reason why this National Portrait Gallery Bassano image on the enwiki w:File:George Tryon.jpg should not be freely licenced like some of the same age in Category:Bassano Ltd? Currently it is tagged as non-free over there. Ww2censor (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The NPG source page identifies the photographer as "Bassano Ltd", a company which was founded by Alexander Bassano, who died before this picture was taken. After various changes, the company became "Industrial Photographic" in 1977.[2] As we don't know the name of the individual photographer should we treat this as being by an unknown photographer? Or do different rules apply to works created by companies? There is also doubt about when this photograph was first published, see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom. If it was first published when the NPG bought it in 1996 then it will become public domain in 2046. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The Wikipedia image page says "Original publication: 27 June 1935", but this is presumably based on "bromide print, 27 June 1935" on the NPG page, which indicates when the print was made. 'Published' means 'made available to the public', for example in a book or a newspaper. It is possible that this photograph was kept within the sitter's family and was not published until it was bought by the NPG in 1996. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest going ahead and uploading to Commons. As the only credit or claim of copyright, even via the NPG records, is the company name, the maximum term for copyright is 70 years; i.e. was PD from 2006 at the latest. Other hypothetical scenarios are highly unlikely and fall below the "significant doubt" that is a requirement of PRP that would credibly justify deletion or a valid rationale against it being public domain.
By the way, for a claim of "publication rights" to exist, they must be asserted by a publisher. There is no evidence of any such claim. --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
So Fæ do you suggest {{PD-UK-unknown}} as the best tag and should a US tag be added and if so which one? Thanks. Ww2censor (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, but as the author is not actually "unknown", I would tend to use {{PD-old-80}} and leave it without as US tag. Someone might argue about the URAA, but for these cases of PD old photographs with no longer existing studios, it's so hypothetical and in a complete vacuum of relevant legal cases, it's like debating whether the moon landings were real.
If you want to unzoom full size, this link relevant. --Fæ (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
First, the image should be taken to enWP's FFD venue for consensus. Otherwise, best to treat the image as non-free at the moment. --George Ho (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Why would that be a prerequisite to getting on with uploading here? --Fæ (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly a prerequisite, but uploading into Commons a work whose copyright status is unclear or undetermined is risky. Well, FFD has low participation, but IMO it's a safer and better way to handle unclear(?) copyright status of this image. --George Ho (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused about your inconsistent standards(Commons:Freedom of panorama#Taiwan (Republic of China))

Please tell me, why these three photos are "No-FOP"? I'm confused about your inconsistent standards.--Kai3952 (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tunyuan Trailhead.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Monument for the Yoshino Immigrant Village in Ji'an.jpg.--Kai3952 (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

“ 第五十八條 (長期展示之美術著作或建築著作之利用)

於街道、公園、建築物之外壁或其他向公眾開放之戶外場所長期展示之美術著作或建築著作，除下列情形外，得以任何方法利用之：
一、以建築方式重製建築物。
二、以雕塑方式重製雕塑物。
三、為於本條規定之場所長期展示目的所為之重製。
四、專門以販賣美術著作重製物為目的所為之重製。

”

Translation:

“ Article 58 (Using Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis):

Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, shall be exploited by any means except under the following circumstances: 1.Reproduction of a building by construction of another building. 2.Reproduction of a work of sculpture by production of another sculpture. 3.Reproduction for the purpose of long-term public display in locales specified in this article. 4.Reproduction of artistic works solely for the purpose of selling copies.

”

See Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#FOP_in_Taiwan.

--WQL (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@WQL: I am NOT asking this for Taiwan's laws.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Riverviewcrest.png

Not sure whether this COA is PD for some reason, but there's no indication that it's been released under a CC license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I've seen that many images from the Smithsonian already belong to Commons, is it possible to upload this one too? Is there a page about rules that apply to imported images from the Smithsonian fund? Thanks --Artafinde (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Sure! {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}} should be OK for this one. Yann (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much --Artafinde (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

File:RCMP shoulder flash.png

While the photo of this patch can be claimed as "own work", I don't think the imagery on the patch itself can be claimed as such. Wikipedia is treating en:File:Royal Canadian Mounted Police.svg as non-free content, but it might actually be PD for one reason or another. However, the copyright status of the crest imagery on the patch probably needs to be clarified in order to keep this particular file. Should there be two copyright licenses( on for the photo and one for the imagery on the patch) for this upload? -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The photo is a slavish reproduction of an 2D object and as such is not protected by a separate copyright. See Commons:2D_copying. Ruslik (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok Ruslik. That takes care of the photo, but the copyright status of the creat image is still not clear. Do you think the crest image is PD for some reason? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Per this page, that has been the emblem since 1954. Wouldn't Crown Copyright have expired? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama in the Faroe Islands

There may be a problem with File:Selkie statue in Mikladalur.jpeg (uploaded by Artafinde), which is of a modern sculpture in a public location in the Faroe Islands. Commons:Freedom of panorama does not mention the Faroe Islands. Should we assume that the FoP rules are the same as Denmark, to which the the Faroe islands have constitutional ties? If so then this image is not acceptable without permission from the sculptor (unless the sculpture is older than it appears to be). Verbcatcher (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The statue was made by sculptor Hans Pauli Olsen and installed in 2014. --Artafinde (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, there may be the same problem with other images in Category:Hans Pauli Olsen. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I see, I'm gonna try to ask to the sculptor the permission to keep at least the image of the Kópakonan statue then. --Artafinde (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
If he agrees then ask him to email OTRS. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It is my understanding that the Faroe Islands and Greenland essentially have duplicated the Danish copyright law, so the FOP rules are probably identical to those in Denmark. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's say I get OTRS permission to upload images from someone's website that also hosts some images by other people, all those images are marked as "uploaded by Dr. This" or "Image from Mrs. That", and at all the other images on this Russian website the name of the administrator or owner of the website is mentioned, if they lend OTRS permission, would this only apply to their images (e.g. Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov) or also the images that were made by others? Was the copyright © transferred if it says "Copyright © Image-board-website.ru"? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, under Russian law, such a transfer of copyright would have to be part of a contract between the operators of the website and the individual photographers. I.e. unless we get to see the individual transfer agreements, I'd not take any images not produced by the website staff themselves. De728631 (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Alright, thankfully most images on the website are his, the moment they complete the OTRS ticket 🎟 I will then only upload their specific images, from what I can tell the website doesn't claim anywhere to own the copyright © of anything posted by "guests" and include their e-makl-addresses in each post so I suspect that they respect their guests' copyrights. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Morrissey and Marr.jpg

I have concerns about this file, which uses two pictures as sources. The picture of Morrissey is fine to my knowledge, but the picture of Johnny Marr was deleted on 2 July 2016 for copyright violation, as can be seen when clicking the link in the description. I would assume that a file using this picture of Johnny Marr would also constitute a copyright violation, but I figured it would be safer to check here first, especially since this file is used on numerous Wikipedia pages and its deletion could potentially be disruptive to said pages. Could someone please tell me if this file does indeed warrant deletion? Bizarre BizarreTalk modern to me 14:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

 Comment This file never had a proper DR, but the free license at Flickr, now changed to ARR, is quite dubious. It is a small file without EXIF data, and there are many copies on the web, some with a high resolution, e.g. [6]. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
If this is a user-created COM:DW, then I don't think it should be kept if one of the photos has already been deleted from Commons as a copyvio. Whether the Marr photo should've been deleted in the first place is hard to say, but based upon what Yann posted above, it seems like it probably shouldn't be restored per COM:PCP or even COM:LL. While I understand how deleting a file used in many articles might be unfortunate, I don't a file of questionable copyright status should be kept for simply that reason alone. I don't know exactly how it would affect the use of the photo, but there are other free images of Marr in Category:Johnny Marr and maybe one of them could be used to replace the deleted one. Somebody at COM:GL/P could probably do this fairly easily. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Help, I guess? What is the correct copyright tags?--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

These are sheet music of the national anthems of Sierra Leone and of Gabon, overlaid on what are presumably emblems of these countries. We have to account for the copyright status of the music and the emblems, each may need a tag if they are allowable. The music was composed by w:en:John Akar (1927–1975) and by w:en:Georges Aleka Damas (1902–1982). I would normally assume that copyright on sheet music is held by the composer, making these files unacceptable, but there may be special rules for national anthems. Sheet music is also protected by the music engraver's (typesetter's) copyright, but in this case the music engraving is probably by the claimed author. The same issues may apply to other files in Category:Sheet music of anthems created by Jeromi Mikhael. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

www.flickr.com/photos/fanglanhsu/38678346900/

Based on what I see at "COM:FOP#Taiwan", not OK for indoor works and outdoor 2D artistic works. I'm not sure if I can upload "this photo" to Wikimedia Commons?--Kai3952 (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kai3952: Not without the permission of the artist or artists who painted the mountains, water, and tree until 50pma per COM:CRT#Republic of China (Taiwan).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
So what do you mean?--Kai3952 (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kai3952: Some person or persons painted that artwork on a flat side of a structure in Taiwan. Obviously, that artwork was published as soon as the public could see it. They hold copyright on that artwork until 50 years after their death. If you can get their permission via OTRS, the file can be uploaded upon approval. Until then, please do not upload it until their copyright expires.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Looking up the exterior of Taoyuan Public Library Lunggang Branch.jpg

"File:Looking up the exterior of Taoyuan Public Library Lunggang Branch.jpg" was submitted for deletion. What I want to ask is: Please take a look at "the original version". It is a bulding, and not 2D art-work. Why would it need to be deleted for?--Kai3952 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kai3952: You had not yet blurred it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Please tell me, where do you want me to blur it?--Kai3952 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Old version hidden, DR closed. Yann (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kai3952: You already blurred it, no problem.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Entrance sign at Datun Nature Park in Sanzhi.jpg

I don't understand why this file("File:Entrance sign at Datun Nature Park in Sanzhi.jpg") was submitted for deletion. Is it because there is a logo on the entrance sign?--Kai3952 (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kai3952: Yes, but Yann wrote that the logo is DM.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Could you explain more clearly what "DM" means?--Kai3952 (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It stands for "de minimis". This is explained at Commons:De minimis. --bjh21 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

What is the correct method to upload an image of an artwork, when I am the author of the image and I have also collaborated on the art work?

Hi,

upload of an image I have taken was recently rejected.

File:Juha_van_Ingen,_AS_Long_As_Possible,_first_frame_playing_documented_in_KIASMA_Helsinki_2017.jpg

For the proof / source (in the permissions letter) I sent the url http://aslongaspossible.com, where my name is mentioned and the same image that I have taken is displayed.

The copyright of the art work is owned by Juha van Ingen, but I have of course his permission to share the image, and I helped to create the displayed piece.

Do you need to have the written permission from Juha van Ingen, or from me, in order to store that image on Wikimedia Commons? Or should Juha upload the image and then have the permission from me to have the image on Commons??? I understood the wording of the permissions letter that it's enough for me to give you the source for the image, along with obvious credentials displaying my name as one of the creators of the piece.

Janne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsrkel (talk • contribs) 14:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I restored the file, as there is a {{OTRS pending}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Eduardo Txillida.jpg

File:Eduardo Txillida.jpg appears to be a photograph made by someone other than the uploader (Xabier Armendaritz), with no clear justification for the {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} licence. The source webpage does not indicate that this is a free image. However, the website conditions of use (in Spanish) may allow us to keep this image.

  • La persona usuaria manifiesta expresamente que dispone de las autorizaciones necesarias para la obtención, tratamiento, uso y explotación de la imagen de terceras personas, en caso de que éstas consten en las fotografías. Y que dichas autorizaciones han sido efectuadas sin limitación territorial ni temporal, permitiendo en cualquier caso la reproducción, total o parcial, la comunicación pública y distribución de las imágenes, con los únicos límites previstos en la Ley Orgánica 1/1982, de 5 de Mayo, de Protección Civil al Derecho al Honor, la Intimidad Personal y familiar y a la Propia Imagen y la legislación sobre propiedad intelectual.

Google Translate renders this as:

  • The user expressly states that they have the necessary authorizations to obtain, process, use and exploit the image of third parties, if they are included in the photographs. And that these authorizations have been made without territorial or temporal limitation, allowing in any case the reproduction, total or partial, public communication and distribution of the images, with the only limits provided for in Organic Law 1/1982, of May 5 , of Civil Protection to the Right to Honor, Personal and Family Intimacy and to the Own Image and the legislation on intellectual property.

The website appears to be published by the w:es:Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, which is a part of the regional government. Is this sufficient to keep the image, and if so which licence tags should be used? Verbcatcher (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Extent of Template:GODL-India

Can {{GODL-India}} be applied to any of the following scenarios?

  1. Pictures tweeted by official handles of Indian government agencies or organizations such as Indian Navy. Attribution is not always provided in these cases [7] [8], so the sourcing may be unclear. However, attribution for pictures sourced from elsewhere seems to be provided [9] [10].
  2. Pictures from archived versions of Government of India websites such as [11]. As far as I know, there is no date of entry into force or a cut-off date for GODL-India.
  3. Pictures from Government of India websites without a sentence similar to "Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission" in their copyright policy, such as DRDO or websites without an explicit copyright policy such as Sainik Samachar. Both the agencies are funded by the Government of India through the Ministry of Defence.
  4. Pictures from other websites with an attribution provided to an agency of Government of India, such as this article with photo attribution to en:DRDO.

—Gazoth (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I would be quite wary of using this for pictures from Tweeter, unless it is really obvious that only the government could have made them. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I understand, the lack of attribution might make it more trouble than it is worth. —Gazoth (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Unlike OGL, GODL-I is not a website/provider specific license. It applies to all government works just like work of the United States government. So whatever terms they mentioned in each site is not relevant and mostly outdated. You're right; there is no date of entry into force or a cut-off date for it. But we should be careful as it is difficult to separate own and third-party works from their twitter and similar accounts. We can find original source files in their PIB or department level sites. For "Pictures from other websites with an attribution provided to an agency of Government of India", it is better to find the original source and upload from there. Jee 10:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. —Gazoth (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I recently uploaded many pictures on Wikimedia Commons, but some of them have been nominated for deletion. Those pictures are all screenshots from a Youtube video which shows that it is under Creative Commons 3.0. The text on the video says "Do Not Re-upload" but it is released under CC 3.0 so I'm confused now. Clicking on the license under the video takes one to this page where it says "By marking your original video with a Creative Commons license, you are granting the entire YouTube community the right to reuse and edit that video." The other videos on the Youtube channel also show the same Creative Commons licencing so this cannot be a mistake. Hence, shouldn't I be allowed to upload screenshots from the video onto Wikimedia Commons since it has been released under CC-BY-SA? Jesstan01 (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Forbidding reupload is a direct contradiction of the Creative Commons license and actually sounds more like an "All Rights Reserved" type license. While Creative Commons license are irrevocable this type of conflict indicates that the person never fully understood what they were doing when they clicked the "Creative Commons" box in their settings (it is a one-click and done option which explains why all the videos are like that). When there is a direct conflict between copyright licenses and we don't know which is correct a precautionary deletion of the file is generally the course we take. --Majora (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: I spoke to an Agent from BugabooTV and he told me that it was okay to upload screenshots from the video. Proof 1, Proof 2, Proof 3. Does this perhaps clear the confusion? Jesstan01 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Well no. First of all, all copyright releases like that would have to go through our COM:OTRS system. And second, "for use on Wikipedia/Commons" is not an acceptable release. There is obviously a language barrier there but they explicitly said the video was copyrighted and only implied that it could be uploaded without any indication as to a license agreement or what is acceptable and what isn't. How many screenshots? Are there further restrictions? Can the screenshots be modified? There are a host of questions there that were not answered and ample evidence that there are large problems with the images (ie. "we do not allow it because it is copyrighted ch7"). If you want to go down this road we would need a release form that explicitly states what parts are being released and under what license sent into OTRS. Sorry, I know that seems like a lot but that is standard procedure around here. --Majora (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: But wasn't the confusion regarding whether the channel understood what they were doing when they clicked the Creative Commons box? The Agent clearly said that this video can be uploaded. If you see the chat again, he said the "we do not allow it because it is copyrighted ch7" about full-length videos, which this is not, since he confirmed it twice that this video can be uploaded. I quote "If it is a short video, we are allowed. This video you can upload." I've uploaded many other screenshots from videos released under CC and it's never been an issue. This video has been released under Creative Commons and based on the chat, it's obvious that the CC license wasn't incorrectly put there since he said that the video can be re-uploaded. Why is anything more required? Jesstan01 (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
But it is not a Creative Commons license. Disallowing the complete reupload of the material is in direct contradiction to the CC terms. They can't have it both ways. The entire thing is either CC or none of it is. If they want to explicitly release specific frames of the video that is their prerogative but they would have to do that in a verifiable manner, via our OTRS system. --Majora (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: But the Agent never said that complete re-upload of the material is not allowed? He said "This video you can upload" about the video I had used. The entire thing is CC. He never said that only specific frames can be used. The video link which I had sent him in the chat is the same video link that I sourced in those images uploaded on Commons. So we have both the CC license of the video as well as confirmation that the CC is valid. Is that not sufficient? Jesstan01 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
If it is a full video, we do not allow it because it is copyrighted ch7. That statement could not be any clearer. If you don't think that says what it clearly says then you obviously linked me to the wrong conversation. Listen, I already told you that there is enough ambiguity there to cause problems. I already told you how to rectify those problems. Continuing to argue the other way isn't going to change my opinion on the matter. --Majora (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Majora: He wrote that statement at the same time as when I sent that link. He was not referring to my video link when he said “If...”. He literally said “This video you can upload” right after that. Did you perhaps miss that? He confirmed that the video was available for use under the CC license. There is a CC license and a confirmation for that license. Your last statement shows that no matter what I say, you’re not willing to consider it. You’ve already made up your mind. For my own satisfaction, I’ll contact them again. Jesstan01 (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Old public domain images on Pixabay

While reviewing Pixabay uploads, I came across File:Vintage image of steam train.jpg, which certainly looks too old for the Pixabay user to have created it. After a bit of searching, I found this, which indicates the image was originally published in the US in 1870. Would it be appropriate to replace the Pixabay tag with {{PD-1923}} and add the original source info, or should I just review it as-is with {{subst:PBLR}}? clpo13(talk) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The original source should be added with {{PD-1923}}, but the modification is quite substantial, so {{subst:PBLR}} would also be good. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
The original is by Nathaniel Currier (1813–1888) and James Ives (1824–1895). It was published in 1870 so it is in fact PD. I doubt that a monochrome version is enough of a derivative to spark a new copyright, so {{PD-old-100-1923}} should be ok. De728631 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Yann and De728631. There's another monochrome version from the Library of Congress at File:The express train LCCN92520194.jpg, so I tagged this one with {{PD-1923}} and put the correct author information. clpo13(talk) 20:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: clpo13(talk) 04:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Angeline Stickney

Hi, I was wondering about the image of Angeline Stickney Hall (died 1892) found on the navy website is it a free image? or can I use the image from this book which is said to be in the public domain? what license should I use? thanks Golan's mom (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The book was published in the US; use a PD-1923 license on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
אמא של גולן: I've uploaded File:Angeline Stickney.jpg from the book An astronomer's wife; the biography of Angeline Hall for you. Ww2censor (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Zabivaka.jpg

Can Commons keep this photo of 2018 World Cup mascot en:Zabivaka? The Commons file is being shadowed by the non-free en:File:Zabivaka.jpg, which would no longer be needed if the free version is OK. The Commons were a photo of the mascot imagery, and it doesn't seem to be a case of COM:DM. It also might be possibly seen as a photo of a 3D work of art, though I think the installation is only temporary and likely to be removed once the World Cup has ended. I think the photo can be released under a CC license, but not sure whether the mascot image can. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This breakfast is only sold in "MyWarmDay". Can I upload it to Wikimedia Commons?

Take a look at this photo: "[12]". As you can see, it is a breakfast without product packaging. My question is: This breakfast is only sold in "MyWarmDay". I'm not sure if "this photo" can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons?--Kai3952 (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

If you still don't know what is "MyWarmDay", then you can look at "File:Qidu Lucky Qiaosi Store, My Warm Day Cafe & Brunch 20161005.jpg".--Kai3952 (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Food isn't copyrightable. --ghouston (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
That's right, food is not copyrightable, and the photo as such has been published under a free licence. So it can be uploaded to Commons. De728631 (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea).webm

Such cases always confuse me. This is work of an US Gov. agency, so shouldn't {{Cc-by-2.0}} be removed? I know the concept of multi-licencing, but IMO mixing a free, but non-PD licence (well, actually any non-PD licence) with a PD licence just doesn't make sense. --jdx Re: 17:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

PD licenses aren't necessarily PD world-wide. US government works have a slightly unclear position outside the US; back in the 1970s, the US asked an international group how they would treat an attempt to enforce US government copyright (on works PD-USGov in the US) outside the US. The rule of the shorter term is not as universal as we'd like, so except on a very old, not PD-Art, work, a proper free license (or even semi-free license) could help in some cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Galaxy-2048x1152.jpg

This Image is marked as own work, but it's actually just a slightly of File:Carina_Nebula.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Das wollige Wollschwein (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 00:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

American Numismatic Society (1943)

Hello 👋🏻 everyone,

Are the media listed here in the public domain? (m.box.com / app.box.com), the user known here as "Craig" usually only compiles public domain works, however with this one I'm not so sure as I don't know that much about when American published articles reach the public domain. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trung: Hi, This links back to IA, and HathiTrust. No problem with these, there are old enough to be {{PD-old-70-1923}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: , alright, I just wanted to confirm it to be sure. I will mark this section as "resolved". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

File:BBFC 15.svg

I'm wondering if this symbol is really too simple to be eligible for copyright protection per COM:TOO#United Kingdom. I'm also curious about the copyright mark (c 2002) being show in the symbol. File:BBFC 15 2002.png is listed as another version of this file, but I think there is quite a big difference in the complexity of design when considering the UK's TOO, so not sure they should be treated the same with respect to copyright status. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBFC 18.svg for what appears to be a similar file deleted for this very reason. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

File:BBFC_15_2002.png is almost certainly below TOO even in UK. On other hand File:BBFC 15.svg is probably above. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Upload Picture, that a person has given me for Wiki Commons

Hi there, everyone!

I am writing an article about a professor and asked him, whether he could give me a picture of him that I could upload to Wiki Commons, under a CC-License. He gave me the picture and said that he would be fine with the license. Now I have tried using the upload assistant, but I am not sure, how to go about the process, as the questions asked don't match my case. What can I do? Is there some way of proving that I have the consent of my professor?

Many thanks in advance! --StapelChips (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, having the oral authorization of your professor is not enough, he needs to go through the OTRS system to prove he's the author of the picture and that he releases it under a CC-BY-SA (or CC-BY) license. Regards, Skimel (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hey StapelChips. As Skimel said, usually you need to have the permission sent by the author (photographer), not the subject. The author should send his permission letter to out ticketing system. See OTRS and Email templates for more info. --Mhhossein talk 13:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

File:86thStreet- Chuck Close, Subway Portraits (31374025090).jpg

Is just the permission of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York sufficient for this to be accepted as licensed or is the permission of the artist who painted/created it also needed? It does appear that Chuck Close did this for the MTA [13], but it's not clear if he retained copyright over the various works. The MTA Flicker license might apply to photos taken by it's employees, but at the same time it might not cover any copyrighted images being photographed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. As the uploader of this image I didn't notice the exception in COM:FOP#United States earlier. Upon closer inspection, it seems to indicate that copyrighted buildings and structures like subway stations are allowable under copyright law. But the artworks inside these buildings are not allowed by copyright law. If Chuck Close didn't give all his rights to the MTA, I think this image will also need Chuck Close's permission as well. epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that that the uploaded of File:Baby Smile.gif is NOT the copyright holder despite her/his declaration. The description seems to indicate the picture came from Google Images. Bit of research and it seems to be from Shutterstock admittedly royalty free. I am not the copyright holder either but is it reasonable for me object (if so how) and ask for deletion? Or should I try to contact Shutterstock or the true copyright holder and see if they object to it being on Wikimedia?

--Headlock0225 (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Headlock0225: Copyvio of https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-adorable-baby-drooling-on-white-98559608, tagged as such.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
JFTR “royalty free” means only that you don’t have to pay per use or according to the exposure your publication will give the image. It implies that the work is under a claim of copyright and that a liberal (but not free) licence is available for purchase.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting...many thanks Odysseus1479 and Jeff G--Headlock0225 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Headlock0225: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Taipei Bridge Station Public Art.jpg

Does this picture violate copyright?--Kai3952 (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

COM:FOP#Taiwan (Republic of China). There's freedom of panorama in Taiwan for outdoor 3D works, but not for indoor or 2D works. clpo13(talk) 19:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Short file descriptions

Recently I uploaded the 3 (threw) files in Category:Images contributed by John Ferguson (Sportstune.com) with their item descriptions, according to Mr. John Ferguson he took those item descriptions from the sources (books) he lists at the bottom of every page and they seem very short only listing the obverse, reverse, their diameter and their inscriptions, I asked him for OTRS permission but he stated that Vladimir (Charm.ru) just added these based on those books, if I'm wrong in adding these short descriptions then please remove then and I will manually add another one myself, but as I'm not sure about the copyright © of short descriptions of items I will ask it here what is and isn't permitted, and I prefer to hear it before I will import a large number of images and will have to clean up a lot of images so uploading three as an example is still manageable. Please read the descriptions and tell me if these quotes are or aren't acceptable. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Direct quotations with attribution are normal practice on Wikipedia (see w:en:Wikipedia:Quotations), and I assume that similar rules apply here. If you are copying text you need to do so accurately, and clearly indicate a direct quote. You can only be sure that you have quoted accurately if you have access to the original source (Novak's book).
These descriptions omit important information about the origin and date of the coins. You specify Category:Cảnh Thịnh Thông Bảo, which indicates the Vietnamese w:Tây Sơn dynasty (1770-1802). This should be in the description. Parts of these descriptions make little sense without context, for example "Similar to the coin above" and "[N] 246C", so a rewrite is probably best. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: That is true, however Asian cash coins tend to be produced during reign titles (Cảnh Thịnh), you are right about the "coin above" part , and the N 246C refers to the Novak number, I actually have all of the publications (except for Mandel's work on Korean charms). I kind of based my assumption from this post on PlagiarismToday about titles and names (specifically simple descriptions). I need to go now, but I will be back. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyhow thank you very much for the advice and explanation, I will reach out to Vladimir Belyaev (Charm.ru / Zeno.ru) first anyhow, and I will fix the current descriptions now. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

File:켄타로.jpg

It is a work by the contributor himself, but several image files older than the creation date can be found[14][15]. I also wonder if it falls under the Creative Commons license. It is not a photograph taken by an ordinary person but it can only be seen as a clip of a magazine or a profile picture of an office.--CODE1999 (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This probably needs a WP:OTRS confirmation. Ruslik (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I marked it as needing permission. seb26 (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much.CODE1999 (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hamagelarai's uploads

Could any one double check the works uploaded by Hamagelarai? They're mostly small files with no meta data. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 13:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

 Comment User blocked. Indeed many files from Facebook, and a last warning was previously given. Yann (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Yann. --Mhhossein talk 05:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Daniel Salvador.jpg

Can someone review this image please? The license may be copyleft. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Copyleft licenses generally require that derivatives be licensed under the same license. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
For anyone else looking at this, the permission statement at the bottom of the source page says Contenido de libre utilización y reproducción citando la fuente (Google Translate to English: Content of free use and reproduction citing the source). Is that a robust enough statement per COM:L? Or do license statements need to be explicit about what's allowed? clpo13(talk) 21:07, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Golden Shoe, Lionel Messi 2012-2013 01.jpg

File:Golden Shoe, Lionel Messi 2012-2013 01.jpg

The problem with stupid sock nominations is that sometimes they have some sort of underlying merit. From what I could find (but sources are a bit poor, like [16] and [17]) this thing is located in a museum in Spain. I'm not sure if {{FoP-Spain}} covers this: "Works permanently located in parks, streets, squares or other public places may be freely reproduced". I don't know if the museum charges an entry fee, but assuming it does, would it still be a public place? I have no problem keeping this if FoP-Spain does apply, but I have some doubts it does. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I also thought about that. This should eventually be nominated with proper arguments. Deletion nominations by LTA confuse the discussion. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: Found it. I'll make a mass DR that should result in either adding {{FoP-Spain}} to many files or deletion, but I suspect it'll be the latter. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Collections of the Museum of FC Barcelona - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Good to have the discussion all together. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

site

Can I take photos from https://www.bic.org/general/copyright-notice? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.9.64.21 (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

For your own use, most likely, but if you mean to upload here, no. Some of those conditions are too restrictive for us to consider a free licence. In particular they don’t allow modifications other than resizing (not free to alter, excerpt, &c.), and according with “the intent and premise of the original source”, although somewhat vague and subjective, is also too strict (not free for all purposes, e.g. criticism).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Uploading photos of the City Archives Amsterdam

Hello all,

I uploaded several photos that I found online, in the City Archives Amsterdam (Stadsarchief Amsterdam). The City Archives has a FAQ on its website, one of the questions being: Mag ik de afbeeldingen gebruiken op internet of in publicaties? (May I use the images on internet or in publications?). The answer is: Vanaf januari 2017 zijn alle afbeeldingen in de Beeldbank, waarvan het Stadsarchief rechthebbende is, kosteloos te downloaden. Ook mag u deze beelden gratis publiceren (As of January 2017 all images in the image database, of which the City Archives Amsterdam is the owner, may be downloaded for free. You may also publish those images for free).

Despite this, all the images that I found using the image database of the City Archives Amsterdam and uploaded, have been removed. Since the City Archives Amstedams allows using the images freely on the internet, I would like to use them on Wikipedia: how can I do that?

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vogeldorp (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vogeldorp: the main problem I see with that statement is that it doesn't appear to allow for modifications and commercial use of the images, per COM:L#Acceptable licenses. Images on Wikimedia sites must be usable by anyone for any purpose. clpo13(talk) 20:57, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
You provided no information about the copyright status of images, their author, dates of the first publication etc. The archive itself does not own any copyright and can not release them into public domain although old images may be in public domain as of now. Ruslik (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Dear Vogeldorp, Every image should have a correct copyright tag to be allowed into Wikimedia Commons, which means that they need to have a correct license. That said, I see that several of the deleted files that you uploaded, are eligible for Commons. This file for instance is a photograph made in 1916 by G. Sigling, who died before 1923. I will go through this dozen of deleted files and check them one by one. If suitable, I will either ask for undeletion of a file or re-upload the right ones (public domain or otherwise) myself. If you want to upload new files: please check the copyright status correctly and provide that information with the files. Vysotsky (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

All rights reserved in exif data

File:Smolasty1.jpg and File:Smolasty2.jpg are uploaded under a free licence, but have Copyright 2018. All rights reserved claim in exif data. ~Cybularny Speak? 17:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Based on the Exif data, the files look like they were created (or at least edited) with w:VSCO. I just tried it out, and by default, the app adds an all rights reserved copyright notice when you export an image from it (though you can change it to a Creative Commons license in the preferences). Still, it might be worth asking the uploader if they can verify with COM:OTRS that they created those images and intended to license them freely. clpo13(talk) 17:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
@Clpo13: Celebrities almost always need OTRS. (if they don't release their photos on their own Flickr/website/etc with Creative Commons license) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

proof of claimed identity

On 9 August 2017 at 04:14, Envergjokaj (talk · contribs) uploaded Enver Leif Gjokaj.jpg, a photo of Enver Gjokaj, describing it as the actor's "Twitter Profile Pic". This user is also apparently claiming to be Enver Gjokaj with their licensing of {{Self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. (a) If the copyright to this portrait photo is held by Mr. Gjokaj, how do we verify, or do we just assume that this SPA is the famous copyright holder? (b) Even if Envergjokaj (talk · contribs) is Enver Gjokaj, how are we assured that this photo is his copyright, especially when the copyrights to professional portraits and photo shoots are held by the photographer or another entity? — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion as it is from Facebook. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Uploading downloaded facsimiles

Hello,

I have a similar problem as Vogeldorp. I would like to add images of public-transport tickets, tourist discount-cards, ticket-vending machines or the like to articles. If I have a ticket etc. at hand, I can take a photo. Then I undisputedly am the author, but the quality won't be very good. But anyway, in most cases I don't possess a ticket etc., so I would have to recur to use facsimiles, which can be downloaded from some sites. About copyright I can imagine that the copyright holder of the original master image (design) is the corresponding public company. Is it permitted to upload such downloaded facsimiles to Wikicommons? If not, what about if I make a screenshot, which renders, in effect, the same image with less quality? Then I am the author. But the copyright of the master image (or design) remains with the company that issues the tickets.

If one of these possibilities (download, screenshot) is permitted, what copyright information should I give? --Railjetter (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Railjetter: In neither of these cases, you are allowed to upload the files, as they would be derivative works of the original documents. There are 2 exceptions: 1. the original document is in the public domain because of its age (usually published more than 70 years ago, or even longer if the document includes some artistic design by a known artist); 2. the original document is very simple, and includes only text and simple geometric forms (in this case, it would be {{PD-textlogo}}). Best would be that you ask here for each specific case. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I uploaded the two logos the normal way, but probably it hasn't been done right. I do not know where to put the PD-textlogo. Moreover, all sources are shown for both logos.
Two files put in this category https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:City_transport_tickets_of_Slovakia
1) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bratislava_Card.png
2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bratislava_transport_ticket_30min_0.90%E2%82%AC.png
Sorry, but it was the first time I uploaded something. Regards, --Railjetter (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Railjetter: As I said above, you are not allowed to upload these files without a formal written permission from the copyright holder of the original document. Do not do that. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but I thought these images might fall under category PD-textlogo, as you mentioned. Obviously, I misunderstood, I should have asked in this forum before. So, is it correct that you do not agree that these images are simple logos? Or if they are considered simple logos, how to use them as PD-textlogo? I haven't understood how to use that mechanism. Regards, --Railjetter (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Railjetter: No, these are not simple logos. This is a complex drawing, and the background of this is complex. A simple logo is like this: File:Logotip del PSC marge.svg. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. a) But, am I permitted to upload self-made screenshots of such tickets and cards? Would look more or less the same as downloaded directly. Then I will be the author of the screenshot, won't I?
b) When I take a close-up picture, it seems to be allowed to upload it like this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tram_tickets,_Most_-_Litvinov_1994_-_Flickr_-_sludgegulper.jpg, Or is this close-up allowed only because of the simple design? Regards, --Railjetter (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Railjetter: This ticket contains only text, no graphics. No self made screenshots, please read COM:DW. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry, I won't do the effort uploading foreign material before having got the okay from you. Thanks for providing the information on derivative works, now I understand the background. But I disagree that the images uploaded by me do not fall under PD-texlogo criteria. I know you do not discuss about Fair Use, but I think that the Wikicommons policy is not adequate.
By the way, I have found this photo on Flickr which allows sharing and adapting. So, to my understanding it would be allowed to cut out the image of the card and upload it. Unfortunately, the angular position does not make it useful for the purpose intended. But doesn't the permission for sharing the complete image with all creative details of the Bratislava Card imply that the directly downloaded image – showing the card merely in a slightly different, i.e. an upright, frontal position – is also permitted to be shared? The author of the photo on Flickr is Bratislavský kraj/Bratislavská župa, i.e. the authorities of Bratislava region that issue the Bratislava Card. Regards, --Railjetter (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
For an image to be licensed as a {{PD-textlogo}} it must be simpler than the 'threshold of originality' for the country concerned and for the USA. The Commons:Threshold of originality page does not give examples for Slovakia, so we apply the general guidelines for a civil law country, and also the precautionary principle. 'Fair use' images can be uploaded to Wikipedia, subject to restrictions, see w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, or the equivalent page for other Wikipedia languages.
The photo you found on Flickr should be ok for Commons, as it is licensed 'CC BY 2.0' and is on the Flickr account of the regional government for Bratislava. The licence allows you to "transform the material", which would include extracting the image of the card and adjusting its geometry. Unfortunately, the lower part of the card is out of focus, so you would not get a good image. To what are you referring by "sharing the complete image with all creative details"? This is not in the licence linked to on the Flickr page. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Waag society

I came across https://www.flickr.com/photos/waagsociety/ which is quite interesting. Has some nice photos, also pictures of Dutch people who have Wikipedia articles without a photo. All the images on this Flickr stream are CC BY-NC-SA, which we can't accept. Some years ago, in 2014 probably, they changed the license. Only a handful of images from before that time were uploaded to Commons.

We do have this archived page from 22 July 2014: https://web.archive.org/web/20140722041309/http://waag.org/nl/pers

"Beeldmateriaal van onze activiteiten is te gebruiken onder een Creative Commons licentie Naamsvermelding. Dit betekent dat ons beeldmateriaal altijd kan worden hergebruikt, mits onze naam wordt vermeld. Indien externe fotografen voor ons beeldmateriaal hebben gemaakt wordt dient ook de naam van deze fotograaf te worden vermeld."

Translated: "Footage of our activities can be used under a Creative Commons attribution license. This means our footage can always be reused, if attribution is provided. If third party photographers made footage for us the name of that photographer should also be mentioned."

This page also links to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. With this, can we create a template {{Waag society}} (similar to {{Koninklijk Huis}}) for photos of their activities that were published before 22 July 2014? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It would probably be OK to take files from the archive of their site from when it was still using CC-BY, but I'm not sure about taking files from their current site (even if old), or from their Flickr stream which is CC BY-NC-SA throughout. --ghouston (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The Flickr account did change license. FlickreviewR reviewed the few that were uploaded like File:Rotary evaporator.jpg as CC BY, but on Flickr it's now NC. Archive.org has records of photos on Flickr having a CC-BY license, but only a few such pages were archived. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

French banknotes from UK

Hi, Is {{Money-FR}} OK for these: Category:Billet du Trésor? They are French banknotes printed in England during the war. Since they were actually produced in UK, and printed by the Bank of England, I thought that the Crown Copyright might apply to them. What do you think? BTW, what should be the category in English? Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bank of England is not part of the Crown, so I doubt if British Crown Copyright would apply. --bjh21 (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
As for the name, I’m thinking of Treasury bills, a type of government bond, but since I don’t know anything about finance it might be a faux ami.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Signature

Hello. I apologize if this topic was already discussed, but I was wondering, how are signatures treated on Commons? Is there some special copyright for it? There are some signatures of authors that died more than 70 years and understand why these ones are published under PD, but there are some of the living people also. So am I allowed to upload signatures of people that died less than 70 years ago or maybe are still alive? This problem occurred to me when I was trying to upload the signature of Frank H. Netter, and it would be sufficient if you just answer, whether it is allowed in this particular case or not. Thanks!Ігор Пєтков (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, as an example File:Donald Trump Signature.svg is considered to be PD-ineligible, maybe the signature has to be very original in order to not automatically in the public domain. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I reckon the signature of Netter has nothing artistic in it, so I will upload it. Ігор Пєтков (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
See Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag. Upload with {{PD-signature}} as the license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Ghost Bird Documentary Poster.jpg

Hello, I’m not sure if film posters can be updated? If so, I am also unsure if it’s licence. If anyone could help me, I’d be grateful!

This is for

⇒ Lucie Person (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that poster is copyrighted. The text at the bottom probably isn't, but the texture of the "ghost bird" text might be (looks sort of hand drawn), and the bird graphic plus its contents is most certainly copyrighted. We would need permission from the artist (or the copyright owner, if that is someone different. Looks like that would be someone at the company here: http://landland.net/filter/poster/Ghost-Bird-Documentary-Poster (while not exactly the same, it's a derivative of the same artwork). Without that, it will need to be deleted. It could potentially be fair use at en-wiki. Most of the time, book covers and posters are copyrighted, and cannot be uploaded (this would be an example of that). A few times, if the cover is purely text without any pictorial items, that may not rise above the Commons:threshold of originality, and be OK under the license you used here. This one does not qualify, however. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Clindberg. ⇒ Lucie Person (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

File:FONDA RAE-PHOTO.jpg

Is there someone who knows what the license is for this image and is willing to review it? I am unsure of the license here. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Not OK. DRed. Yann (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

why is there still a problem?

I've added author and source to File:Prof. Judith Driscoll, University of Cambridge.jpg as per the complaint box but the complaint box is still there. What is the problem? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brian Josephson,
OK, now there is a source, but since the picture was not taken by you, the copyright holder needs to send a permission via COM:OTRS. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Brian Josephson, sometimes it is easier to have the library upload to a flickr account with a CC license. (but need to confirm it is work for hire / photo release) (don't know who has access to this account https://www.flickr.com/photos/trinitycollegecambridge ) cheers Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Are annual reports of municipalities in Latvia is licensed under PD-LV-exempt?

Here's the link. There are some useful data and photos there, and it would be good if it was extracted. The question is that is this copyrighted?--Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that should work. {{PD-LV-exempt}} includes "other documents issued by the State and Local Governments". De728631 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

COM:TOO and Urban Light

Hi everyone! I started a discussion on en:Talk:Urban Light about whether that article subject meets the threshold of originality. If you feel knowledgeable about this topic, could you take a look? Some of the files in question are hosted on Commons. Thank you in advance. Killiondude (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Killiondude: Discussion about images hosted on Commons should happen on Commons. What's decided on Wikipedia has little relevance here. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
doubt those photos of sculpture installed in 2008 are PD. [18] see also Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US needs to be before 1989 to have a chance. pick the best highsmith one for a fair use on english. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

William Henry Power image

Hello, what is the suitable license to upload one of this images to en:William Henry Power? first one or second one. Thanks --Alaa :)..! 12:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The second one says it's a Crown Copyright photograph, and since it was taken before 1957, copyright for it expired fifty years after creation (see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom). {{PD-UKGov}} would be the appropriate license. (It looks more like an engraving to me, but if it was published before 1989, the same rules apply. [19]) The first one, on the other hand, doesn't have enough information on who took the photo or when it was created or first published to make a determination. It might be out of copyright in the US, since the subject died in 1916 and the work would have presumably been published when he was still alive, but we can't be sure without more info on that particular photo. {{PD-UK-unknown}} might work if you can't reasonably find out who took the photo, but that still depends on when it was first published. clpo13(talk) 16:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Clpo13: Thanks a lot, I uploaded the second one. Can you help also in this? --Alaa :)..! 07:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Also this (Denis Burkitt Image Credit: Wellcome Images. Wellcome Library reference: WTI/DPB/F/6:Box 31.) --Alaa :)..! 07:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think either of those are usable on Wikipedia. The portrait of Norman Henry Ashton was taken in 1968, so it's still in copyright in the UK. It looks like the earliest it could be public domain in the UK is 2039 (assuming anonymous creation and publication the year it was created), but the exact date depends on when it was first published and when the photographer, if known, died. NPG does allow non-commercial use of this photo per CC BY-NC-ND 3.0, but that's incompatible with COM:L.
The image of Denis Burkitt is in the Wellcome Library, but I don't see any indication of a free license for it. The main page (https://wellcomelibrary.org/) has a CC BY 4.0 notice at the bottom, but there isn't one for the blog that this image can be found on. Except for this photo at least, the photo album it came from is not digitized and the archive record says Researchers who wish to publish material must seek copyright permission from the copyright owner. Without any clear indication otherwise, I'd say this photo is subject to the usual UK copyright rules, meaning it'll become public domain 70 years after the photographer's death, unless Wellcome licenses it freely before then. clpo13(talk) 23:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/06&oldid=310582388"