Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/12

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

Blocking a picture after 3 revocations

Hello All,

Is there no rule of blocking the page after 3 revocations or cancelations, as it is the case for this file File:Craqdi and Dani Martínez.ogg, as it is the case on Wikipedia? I am fighting with the troll Craqdi/Punxito right now. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Jeff_G., Yann ? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
AmandaNP ? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@CoffeeEngineer: I see one logged deletion for that file, where do you see 3?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Jeff G. How many cancellation or revocation does it take on a file to flag it as an issue? It does need three separate porposals for deletion now? Do you know how many weeks it would take? CoffeeEngineer (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@CoffeeEngineer: One conventional DR should be enough. However, some people like to interfere, most DRs have to run for at least a week, and some can take up to three months (Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08 still has DRs from "August 6") due to insufficient Admin attention.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@CoffeeEngineer: are you talking about the "3RR"? If so, that's about three reversions, which is probably why someone wouldn't know what you meant by "3 revocations or cancelations". Yes, the now=blocked user probably could have been blocked for that instead. Typically, when one person has been the problem over and over, we block the person rather than protecting a page; if multiple people seem to be a problem on the same page, only then would we (semi-)protect the page. - Jmabel ! talk 04:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: It is indeed reversion. I did not know the word in English. The problem here as I see it, is that it is not flagged to an administrator, as it is for an article. Meanwhile, I also recognize that I am not really sure, if it works like this, but I saw a R3R happen many time on the French version of the encyclopedia. CoffeeEngineer (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@CoffeeEngineer: nothing really flags it automatically on the other Wikis, either. Bring it to COM:AN/U, it will almost always result in a prompt block. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Continuation of the Italian fop thread

Continuation of the Italian fop thread started in October (just archived, see Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/10#Italy FOP again and artwork copyrights supposedly held by city councils of Italy) at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Italy#Freedom of panorama and government works. --Rosenzweig τ 13:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Public Domain videos with restrictions

At the Archive website for the National Film Board (Canada), there are lots of old videos/films, many of which are of historical value. Ex. https://archives.nfb.ca/search/?query=1898 I found one from 1898. Ok, obviously Public Domain...
They place this disclaimer under the content, "Any reproduction and use of the content of this site, other than for private use, requires a written license from the NFB. The NFB reserves all of its rights and recourses, including injunction relief and claims for damages, against any unauthorized reproduction or use of stock shots and stills contained in this site or any part thereof."
I also reached out via email and got this response "Although we do have some footage and films that are technically in the public domain, we own master copies and therefore we have the right to charge fees for reproduction and usage. Any revenue generated goes towards the cost of preserving the collection for future generations and making it available online."
Does owning the master really hold one special conditions? PascalHD (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, This is clear copyfraud. Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada doesn't say anything specific about films, but at least everything before 1927 (and 1928 next month) can be uploaded to Commons. If they are government works, everything until 1972 (1973) is OK. If films have the same copyright status as pictures, then everything until 1949 is OK. BTW great find! Please propose the best videos for media of the day. Yann (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: what's your logic on "everything before 1927 (and 1928 next month)" for Canada? Not saying you are wrong, just that I don't see why. It seems to me that with 70 years p.m.a. for Canada, a young artist could very well have made something in 1920, lived till 1990, and that would be in copyright through 2060. What amm I missing? - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Canada is 50 pma. Remember that the 20-year copyright extension in 2022 was not retroactive. So making a film in 1928, the film is in the public domain if the director died before 1973. Quite reasonable. Yann (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Looking at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada, it seems pretty clear that it's not retroactive in the sense it didn't restore PD works to copyright, but it does apply to all works in copyright when it came in force, and Canada's copyright is going to be (mostly?) frozen for 20 years, like the US's was.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
@Yann Okay that's what I was thinking. Just was not sure if there was any sort of special rules. I will take a look through their site and upload the ones I find of most value to Wikipedia & the Commons. PascalHD (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Controlling access to the master copy doesn't give you any special rights, but from a practical standpoint by controlling access, if you make someone sign a contract in order to obtain a copy that contract can have restrictions. Possibly as part of creating an account, you may need to agree to something, so read the fine print. The only other thing would be claiming copyright on the digitization, which seems doubtful. For copies that are put out there though, not sure what they can claim unless you sign something. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
@Carl: Can they make claims internationally? Do they?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Based on copyright no, can't see anything. Contract law would be an entirely different area, and could vary a lot. Mostly, it sounds like an attempt to maximize their own revenues, and make it sound good. But I do see they require an account to use their site, and the terms of use you agree to may have some stuff in there, which could restrict what you can do. Not a clue how far they go to enforce those, if there are any. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Thanks. Their "Terms of use of the Websites" AKA "Conditions of use of the NFB Site" are at https://help.nfb.ca/important-notices/#use.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
They certainly do seem to be about using the films to maximize their own revenue and control :-). Maybe they do a great job actually preserving the master films, and their public purpose doesn't go any further than that, but they certainly seem to want to control every commercial use of them as if they did own the copyright, copyrighted or not. I would not upload something I download from them, if I had to agree to that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@PascalHD: As other comments noted, there are two issues: 1) the copyright status of the films and 2) the contractual requirements for using the NFB website to get practical access to them.
1) Regarding the copyright of the films, there is also another distinction:
1A) The NFB/ONF is an agent/mandataire of the federal government, as it itself states on its website. So, the films produced solely by the NFB are, or were, under Crown copyright, which in Canada expires 50 years after the first publication. A NFB film published more than 50 years ago is in the public domain in Canada.
1B) Films made by people other than government or government agents would be under ordinary (non-Crown) copyright. (A literal reading of the Copyright Act might make third-party works pass under Crown copyright just for being published by the government, but the Supreme Court nuanced that a few years ago, interpreting that the government cannot just deprive someone of the copyright on a work by merely publishing it.)
2)Regarding the contract between the NFB and a user for use of its website, stipulated unilaterally by the NFB in the terms of use of its website, I expected that that type of situation was covered in the Commons guideline about non-copyright restrictions, but apparently it is not. There is something about "house rules" contracts, for example when a Commons user wants to upload photos taken in a museum that had contractual requirements for access, but not about contracts for the use of websites. Are we implicitly supposed to apply the same rationale? Is there another official guideline about it somewhere?
-- Asclepias (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The uploader is responsible for what they upload. If they are legally responsible for following a contract, they could be liable for a breach, if uploading it here violates that contract. Not sure that anyone else would be, but an uploader could put themselves at risk (same as "house rules", though those have less legal precedent than contract stuff -- they are usually based on physical trespass). This is an adhesion contract, but they seem pretty clear about the restrictions. If a court finds the terms "unconscionable" they can be invalid (or parts of them), but they have been enforceable in many situations I'm pretty sure. From one perspective, they certainly don't want to enable anyone to download all the PD movies they have digitized, just to create a competing service (such as Wikimedia Commons). Similar with Alamy etc. with public domain photos -- they are providing a service, and can charge for that, but wouldn't surprise me if they try to put restrictions on even those photos. In the end, each uploader has to measure the risk to themselves -- we aren't lawyers here, and can't offer real legal advise, and the law in each country can be different and we wouldn't know. Only the uploaders would know what the agreements are, and what they agreed to (they could have a special agreement which supersedes the normal one). So we'd allow the uploads I guess for PD films (if PD in both Canada and the US), if the uploader wants to take that risk. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg Thanks for your response, and appreciate your insight. I have not uploaded anything just yet. Looking for a conclusion/consensus before proceeding. From the Canadian Government's website: "Public domain refers to works that belong to the public. Works in the public domain can be used free of charge and do not require written permission from the author/creator." [1]. I interpret this as, I don't need the NFB's permission to take their Public Domain videos. I find it odd that I could somehow be held liable for something they cannot legally enforce copyright on anymore, as it belongs to the public. Unless owning the master copies grants them some special rules as they claimed in their email, that I am unaware of. I did not find anything in the Copyright Act about that. I find it a shame that an Archive would go to great lengths to keep people from freely using such (PD) materials. Hiding it away from the public for profit. PascalHD (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
They cannot sue you for copyright infringement. If you signed a contract (or are bound by one by whatever legal mechanism) to not do something, and you violate that contract, that is entirely different -- there are no expirations on that. And if creating an account there means you agree to their terms of service, and Canadian and/or US courts agree that is a binding contract, then uploading here would likely violate it. There is no special right they get by owning the master copies, other than they are the gateway, and if you want access then you have to agree to a contract, meaning they can force you into that. If you don't agree, then no access. I do find it a shame as well, but the Canadian government may have set them up to primarily preserve the films, and try to self-finance (reducing costs for their taxpayers) through licensing. Taxpayers pay less, but they also get less -- the actual preservation is the only public benefit, and any users pay fees. Well I guess you can view them for private purposes (which fair use / fair dealing would have allowed anyways), so there is some access provided. But maybe their government gave them rules like that when creating the archive, in which case their hands would be tied. You'd have to go see what their charter was from the government when it was formed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Free images posted on Facebook

This image was published by a California government agency (free to re-publish), but it was posted on Facebook, which is copyright protected. Ok or not? Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: I think it can stay, but the City of Vista should not be granting to Facebook rights it does not have.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes. More generally, extra caution should be taken with "free" content from FB. The copyright status must be assessed independently, as the Facebook user is often not the copyright holder, so the license is not valid. Yann (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
This is totally tangential, but it would be interesting to see if there would be any support for similar proposal to for webp files but with Facebook. Since files from there seem to rarely be legitimate. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: Media from Facebook is already suspect here. I don't know if we have the technical means to prohibit it from users who do not have autopatrol+. Эlcobbola: what do you think?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Facebook's term 3.1 at https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms includes the following: "to provide our services we need you to give us some legal permissions (known as a "license") to use this content. This is solely for the purposes of providing and improving our Products and services as described in Section 1 above.
Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as Meta Products or service providers that support those products and services. This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems." Facebook actively scrubs metadata from photos, replacing it with "FBMD" metadata and making license investigation difficult.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Facebook (Meta) also claims the right to continue to use the posters photo for 30 days past its removal. Images are saved on its CDN servers all over the world and that propagation according to them takes 30 days to clear.
Up to a few months ago Meta was scrapping images from Commons and completely refused to attribute them in any way and when asked to remove them (by yours truly) it removed the Commons based image and replaced it a short time later giving the middle finger to the attribution requirement trying to claim fair use.
At one point CC images were specifically prohibited on FB, back when Alexis Jazz was nice enough to help me create a user template and as such since that date I have posted on my image reuse page that my images are not to be posted on FB, yet Meta did not care and did so willingly and willfully despite my requests for years distributing the 17 photos in question I created to over 10,000,000 peoples Facebook pages.
Don (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@WPPilot note there is a discussion at meta:Talk:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media regarding the issue. Unfortunately, the enthusiasm evaporated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:21, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
But of course you can't just blame Facebook for having these issues. Many Facebook netizens themselves are "accomplices". Let's take the FBMD and "NoFacebook" templates out of the equation: here in the Philippines, it is very common for many netizens to not exhausting efforts to trace the images' copyright holders before posting; instead, they just invoke some lame crediting techniques like: "CTTO" (credit/s to the owner/s; sample), "Photo not mine" (sample), or even "No copyright infringement intended" (sample). Such lame crediting techniques persist even if our copyright office already explicitly stated that such actions are unacceptable. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Facebook seems to have an entitlement issue as it feels images can be used in any way it wants to, and it refuses to adhere to CC licensing. Speaking from experience you should avoid anything to do with images FROM Facebook and beware of images on Facebook. I am unable to go into more detail here, but your best bet is to find the image located on a site that you know provides clear attribution and licensing data and avoid FB images here completely. --Don (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with WPPilot. One sample case concerns an image posted on the official Facebook page of the Philippine town of w:en:Albuera, but that image happens to be from a professional photographer hired by the town for an occasion that time (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jovit Baldivino in Albuera, Leyte.jpg). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Relicensing own work from CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 to CC‑BY‑4.0

This is just a procedural question (I guess). How do I relicense my own work originally under Creative Commons CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 to the more lax Creative Commons CC‑BY‑4.0 license. The image shown, for instance. Could not see this matter covered in the copyright FAQ. Many thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: Because you are the person doing the licensing, you may change {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} to {{self|cc-by-4.0}} in the wikitext by removing "-sa". Alternatively, to maintain the chain of licensing for copies and derivative works, you may instead just add {{self|cc-by-4.0}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks. I chose the former action, edited the existing template, and left a commit message stating what was changed. That should be sufficient record I think. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@RobbieIanMorrison: You're welcome, and thanks for asking here and using the Edit Summary there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Court in Beijing China ruled AI pic copyrightable

https://twitter.com/bbcchinese/status/1729781393369305444

法院认为，尽管该图片是使用AI工具生成，但原告进行了一定的智力投入，例如选择模型、提示词和设置相关参数等。“涉案图片是基于原告的智力投入直接产生，且体现出了原告的个性化表达，故原告是涉案图片的作者。”判决书写道。

by picking ai models, keywords and settings, the picture is created directly from the plaintiff's intelligent input, so s/he gets copyright to the pic. RZuo (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

For the convenience of non-Chinese readers here I'll put an extra SCMP article on the same case here: [2]
I'm guessing this is worth a note within COM:AI and COM:CHINA? S5A-0043Talk 12:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
@S5A-0043 Not only this, probably {{PD-algorithm}} is also affected. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Images within images

I'd like to upload a picture of a book, it was published in 2023, the problem is, while the most of the cover in white with black text, in the centre, there are about 6 images, which might be copyrighted. Again, I want to upload an image of the entire cover, not each individual image on it.


Is that permissible? Crainsaw (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If the images are still in copyright, it will come down to a judgement of de minimis. Is there a copy of the cover online you can link to so editors can comment on whether de minimis is likely to apply? From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
It from a rather obscure regional journal, so no covers are available online, I could just upload the image, and then we could judge about whether de minimis would apply, if not, simply delete it. Crainsaw (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Here's a link from the German National Library, it also doesn't contain any cover though. Crainsaw (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please, rev del the original photo.

I cropped the media interview and cut out buildings to avoid any FOP issue. Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan: You may have to specify exactly which file you're referring to. GMGtalk 18:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo, sorry about that. Here it is File:CNBC Interviews Rafael Mariano Grossi at COP28 (cop28 9795).jpg. Thank you, --Ooligan (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Three others here
File:CNBC Interviews Rafael Mariano Grossi at COP28 (cop28 9742).jpg and here File:CNBC Interviews Rafael Mariano Grossi at COP28 (cop28 9761).jpg File:CNBC_Interviews_Rafael_Mariano_Grossi_at_COP28_(cop28_9812).jpg. --Ooligan (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Done - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

death date unknown?

I've been fixing the licenses in Category:Nos peintres dessinés par eux-mêmes (1883) - they were labeled as 'PD-anon-expired', but each image has an identifiable artist.

Problem: this one is by "Arthur / Arturo Canela", about whom all I've been able to find is that he was born in Paris in 1847.

Given that the book in question was published in France in 1883, is it safe to assume that the image is PD by now? He could potentially have lived into the mid-1950s... DS (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as long as we don't have a death date, we can assume anything published in 1883 in France is public domain. For PD-old-assumed-expired, it just has to have been created over 120 years ago (if PMA 70). Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this transformative enough of an image?

Hello, my partner Erdabravest2001 and I wanted to know if this image would violate copyright.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CjUnDTFKW7tjz0ltBxoHlDdFlyFsrPS0/view?usp=sharing

We took the format of the image from https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.92.015003 at figure 5 and reproduced the image for with our own equations. However, we are concerned that doing this would violate copyright. We were wondering we could get any thoughts on if this is an acceptable reproduction. My partner says that the information and format is common for quantum circuits in general, but would some further confirmation first. Many thanks. Bird flock (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bird flock: Probably the original diagram wasn't even copyrightable, but if it was certainly any copyrightable elements are exactly what you left out of your version. When you upload here, do credit the original for the ideas expressed. I'd also guess your version isn't copyrightable, and it would probably be clearest to note that and use a CC-zero license when uploading, releasing any claim on having something copyrightable here. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status of tattoos

Does anyone know what the copyright status of tattoos is or who would own the copyright if they are copyrightable? I was thinking maybe they would be treated the same as graffiti since the original artist is often anonymous and hard to prove in court, but I don't know. I guess there's only been one court case having to do with tattoos. So maybe it doesn't even matter. Although the court did ultimately side with the artist. So it's probably worth clarifying regardless. Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1 Probably NotOK due to COM:FOP US? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Good call. I hadn't thought about FOP. Probably the same would go for other countries if it's applicable. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Pre-1989 US tattoos would not be copyrighted, since that would have required notice and/or registration, which I'm sure never occurred. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
In this case, @Mykola7: 's File:Stardust_January_2015.jpg might also be a question, need inputs from COM:TOO US professors. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Certainly OK. It's a picture of a person, which inevitably captures their tattoos, just like it inevitably captures their clothing. - Jmabel ! talk 03:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

"I personally created this media"

I don't get the copyright situation of this image. The photographer's name, according to metadata, is Helen Ree. The uploader is a Swiss library account which is managed by three persons, none of whom is named Helen(e) Ree (they didn't even bother to spell her name correctly in the summary). Yet, the account claims "I personally created this media" and publishes it under a CC 4.0 license. How does all that go together with Swiss copyright law? --2003:C0:8F25:6900:D5C4:E24D:490C:DC3A 19:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The template in question isn't a copyright template, it's a subject-consent template. The wording is not entirely appropriate to that photo but, really, if its an official photo within an organization I don't think there is a problem that the uploader isn't the copyright-holder. - Jmabel ! talk 20:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Does the organisation have the right to re-license? Why would a photographer sell a photo with a CC 4.0 license? --2003:C0:8F25:6900:D5C4:E24D:490C:DC3A 21:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your concern. Why do you assume that the photographer was outside the organization and that the image was sold? Why would there be anything odd about part of a sale being the granting of a license? (I've had occasion to issue CC licenses on numerous commissioned photos, and also sold licenses to use an already CC-licensed photo without the usual conditions of that CC license. I don't think either of those scenarios are unusual.)
All things being equal, we have every reason to trust ETH-Bibliothek to know what they are doing. It's not as if they are an unknown entity, or someone who is known for playing fast and loose with rights. We don't really have a template to say "This person is one of our co-workers and I know they consented to have this photo taken even though I personally wasn't the photographer," so presumably they used {{Consent}}, which is close enough, rather than write custom text. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel maybe a COM:VRTS email from the claimed licensee solves the question? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: It would certainly solve any doubt, but I don't see anything here that makes me doubt this at all. Do you? - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm usually as suspicious as anyone else about these kinds of things, but she was educated at and is employeed by the uploader. So there's no reason to doubt them about it. Although with the caviet that it probably go the other way if the image was clearly being used for promotional reasons. But I'm not really seeing any evidence of that in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

O.k., I'll give it another try to explain my point.
1. We do not know who the photographer is. These companies may use someone from within the company, or they may employ an outside photographer to do their company portraits. This image looks very much like a professional photo to me, so I would suspect the latter.
2. In the case of an outside photographer, they are going to have some sort of a contract, and the company is going to buy the usage rights from the photographer. NOT the copyright.
3. The contract for usage will include some sort of a license. But what license? Is that really a CC 4.0 license? Why would a photographer use the CC 4.0 license for their contracts? Isn't that just like giving away their photos for free?
--2003:C0:8F18:6600:281F:69D8:CFB3:DB08 08:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are assuming that using an external photographer (if that is what happened here) prevents transfer of copyright. In my own company, our contracts with external photographers transfer all rights from the photographer (except their right to be identified as the photographer, if they wish to be identified). Generally, my company wants to control if, when and how our corporate images are published outside of the organisation. Buying the rights in the initial contract with the photographer is the simplest step to achieve that. In the case of one of our company employees taking the photograph in a work context, their contract of employment automatically transfers the copyright to the company. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Possible incompatible license for museum boat model image

The "Please note" comment about non-commercial use seems incompatible with Wikimedia's CC-BY-SA licensing. Should this File be deleted? Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Looks like a non-copyright restriction to me: the museum certainly does not own a copyright on the object in question. Possibly the uploader (Pinging @ArchaiOptix has put themself in a legally difficult place by offering a CC-BY-SA license if they took the picture on a basis that did not allow for commercial use. I'd support a courtesy deletion if the uploader requested it, but there is no copyright issue. - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I have removed the request that re-users contact the museum for permission. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I had not run into this particular wrinkle of copyright before. Comments above led me to Non-copyright restriction, and COM:CSM#Museum and interior photography which it links to, so I think I understand the comments above in light of those two, and our approach of "that's between you and the museum", which seems sensible in this case.
    It did, however, lead me to a thought experiment (mostly o/t for this discussion) regarding a similar situation as we have here, except that instead of a museum being the repository with house rules, imagine it's a government. I wonder what our reaction would be to someone uploading the Pentagon papers, or an Edward Snowden uploading the NSA global surveillance documents here, instead of where they did. U.S. government publications are generally not copyrightable so I assume documents created by govt. employees and marked "secret" would fall squarely under the NCR guideline, and therefore would be "between the uploader and the [government agency]". It's interesting to note that although COM:CSM#Images released under a free license says of US govt. pubs that "most government-created works are as a matter of policy released into the public domain", and this may be true, it implies that the ones that are not released are not in the public domain. But this is at least misleading as unnecessarily restrictive, since publications created by U.S. govt. employees are not copyrightable (17 U.S.C. § 105). I wondered if the wording at NCR is either an oversight, or an intentional (and understandable) bit of intentional omission, so that we don't encourage the kind of activity that an Ellsberg, Snowden, or Assange got involved in and end up finding ourselves in their position. I'd rather see our charitable funding going into more servers and better software support, than falling into the black hole of endless litigation. At first I had thought, maybe the writer of that sentence was somebody at legal had that in mind and was quite careful and intentional about the wording we see, but given that it's been there since the initial version, it's probably just random. Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Are the Wikimedia PD rules for Afghanistan correct?

I am reading the 2008 copyright law of Afghanistan, and from what I can see, more is under public domain than the PD-Afghanistan template suggests. It would appear that the law only protects photographs (defined under "audiovisual works") that are either created for broadcast via TV or radio, or created "using an innovative mode".

Does this mean that photographs that are neither created for broadcast nor innovatively created are in the Afghan public domain? Zanahary (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but "innovatively created" is probably to ambigious of a term to read antyhing into. Especially if what your reading into it is that most or all photographs are probably PD. At least not without using legal commentary or something to back it up with. Otherwise, "innovatively created" could mean quite a lot of things depending. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: there have been quite a few countries where basic photography -- snapshots -- are not normally eligible for copyright, or have a very short term of copyright, while still extending copyright to higher-quality work. Obviously, in the current era such distinctions have become harder to make. - Jmabel ! talk 21:26, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm aware. That could very well be the case here to, but it really depends on what the law means by "innovatively created." --Adamant1 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Railway with a Heart of Gold

Railway with a Heart of Gold is an American short documentary, filmed in the UK in 1953 by American producer Carson Davidson and released in 1965. As far as I can see, it has no copyright notice. The movie can be seen here [3]. Could a copyright expert confirm it is eligible for {{PD-US-no notice}} please? Voice of Clam 16:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Murano/Venetian beads

Are my own photos of a contemporary handmade glass bead from Murano/Venice allowed to be in Commons repository? Here are the links to the photos: and . Thanks in advance for your answers. Hortensja Bukietowa (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Images with WireImgId in metadata

I've noticed that a number of images have a "Source" string in metadata like @WireImgId=12345678 which appears to indicate that an image was, at one point, distributed as a wire photo. A few examples of these images are:

Does anyone know what the specific meaning of this identifier is, what vendor adds it, and/or how it can be looked up on stock image sites to confirm the copyright status of these images? Omphalographer (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Photos of public domain objects (two-dimensional, printed or painted on paper)

I have found and uploaded two photos of two objects, which are now certainly in public domain. But now I have some doubts. From the one hand, these photos are simply photocopies of public domain objects (a poster, published by the unknown author in 1918, and a seal, created by Heorhiy Narbut, which died in 1920). But from the other hand, these photocopies have a clear information about photographers, who created them. So, are such photocopies of public domain objects also in public domain, or such photos should be deleted?

صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@صلاح الأوكراني: a faithful photographic reproduction of a 2-dimensional work does not create any new intellectual property rights. It's polite of us to credit who did the photography, if known, but they don't own a copyright on anything in this work. - Jmabel ! talk 08:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

John Steinbeck book covers

Would like some input on the copyright licenses of File:Tortilla Flat (1935 1st ed dust jacket).jpg, File:Of Mice and Men (1937 1st ed dust jacket).jpg, File:The Grapes of Wrath (1939 1st ed cover).jpg, File:Cannery Row (1945 1st ed dust jacket).jpg, File:The Pearl (1947 1st ed dust jacket).jpg and File:East of Eden (1952 1st ed dust jacket).jpg? These files were all uploaded by Blz 2049 with the same detailed justification for the {{PD-US-no notice}} licensing. While this justification does correctly reflect what is written about dust jackets requiring separate copyright notices in 2207.01(C) on page 18 of the The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices: Chapter 2200, I'm not sure that applies to these particular dust jackets because of what's written in "2201 What This Chapter Covers" of that same compendium. Section (Clause?) 2201 states the following:

This Chapter discusses the notice requirements for U.S. works published in copies and phonorecords in the United States between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989, when copyright notice was required for published works. This Chapter does not cover works published before January 1, 1978 under the Copyright Act of 1909. For information on the notice requirements for works first published prior to January 1, 1978, see Chapter 2100 (Renewal Registration).

All of the file uploads are of works published prior to January 1, 1978. Moreover, the no-notice license itself only applies to works uploaded between 1928 and 1977 (inclusive) which would seem to mean that the compendium cited cannot be used to justify any such claim. Now, it's possible there was a similar "dust jacket" clause in Copyright Act of 1901, but I'm not sure about that. It's also possible that these covers might actually be {{PD-US-not renewed}} under the terms of the 1901 Act, but that's a different license with a completely different rationale. So, I'm wondering if these files are OK as licensed and what should be done about them if they're not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the six Steinbeck files mentioned above, the same "dusk jacket" rationale is also being to File:Absalom, Absalom! (1936 1st ed cover).jpg, File:The Catcher in the Rye (1951, first edition cover).jpg, File:The Catcher in the Rye (1951, first edition dust jacket).jpg, File:Invisible Man (1952 1st ed jacket cover).jpg, File:To Kill a Mockingbird (first edition cover).jpg and File:Gravity's Rainbow (1973 1st ed cover).jpg also uploaded by Blz 2049. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: does {{US book dust jacket 1909–1977}} cover your concern (so to speak)? - Jmabel ! talk 03:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: My relatively inexperienced take is that {{PD-US-no notice}} is indeed the correct license here. The long explanation by the original uploader doesn't affect the license itself; it simply points out, for those who may be unaware of the fact, that in the case of pre-1989 publications in which copyright notices were required to be present, the courts consider the copyright of the dust jacket or book cover to be a separate issue from that of the book itself. That this principle extends retroactively to pre-1978 publications is shown by the case of the Jaws cover, which is cited in the {{US book dust jacket 1909–1977}} template that Jmabel linked. That case concerned the cover of the 1974 paperback edition, which was physically attached to the book, and the arguments supporting PD-US-no-notice set out in the decision apply even more strongly to unattached dust jackets like the ones you're asking about. But if I'm wrong I'd be happy to be corrected by those who know more. Choliamb (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Jmabel and Choliamb for the additional information. The licensing seems to check out based on what you two posted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Century 21 Calling and Mr. B Natural

Is it possible that Century 21 Calling and Mr. B Natural in the public domain as per {{PD-US-no notice}}? Lugamo94 (talk) 03:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The National Film Preservation Foundation's Guide to Sponsored Films lists Mr. B Natural and Century 21 Calling as unregistered for copyright and I couldn't find any renewals at the online Copyright Office search, so they're in the public domain, and PD-US-no notice works if you don't see one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Lugamo94 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Mass-changes of licences for typeface samples?

User Chewzy appears to have changed the licences of a few hundred typeface samples, such as this one, without prior notice. I am not sure if that is allowed, and even if so, I think such a move should have been discussed first. --Minoa (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This should be reverted. For anything but the simplest of plain text, a CC license is stronger than PD-text because the former is a license while the latter is merely a description. So a user in the UK would not be able to use the image under PD-text, for instance, since it is probably above COM:TOO UK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I probably need help because there is like more than 400 files affected by the unauthorised licence change. I don't have the tools or the time to mass-revert them all. --Minoa (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Minoa and King of Hearts: I rolled back 448 of them for you per special:diff/829134151.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for stepping in. --Minoa (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Minoa: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You cannot claim copyright on "abcdefghijk" or "a quick brown fox".--Chewzy (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

True, but you can claim copyright, even in the US, on computer programs that draw characters, which TTF and SVG files are. And as King of Hearts points out, this is more complex than a simple string.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
@Chewzy: The quick brown fox jumped over a lazy dog named Chewzy, who messed with copyright tags 448 times. Don't do that again.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be news to me that we have ever tried to claim software copyright for our SVG files. It is not in line with our project goals to advocate for further copyright restrictions and undermine important copyright exceptions, especially to further the use of such dubious tricks. We want easier access to the world's knowledge and a more robust public domain, not less.--Chewzy (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"We" claim copyright on "our" SVG files? We could just change all the licenses on the files to PD on that argument. They aren't our files to claim copyright on or not, the uploaders have the right to claim copyright on them. TTF copyrights are very clearly legit, so changing the format of those vectors should change nothing. What we want is a legal repository, not one that has illegitimate licenses stuck on people's work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The Wizard of Oz (1933 animated film)

Hi, I don't see any discussion about this animated film (not the 1939 film). English WP article used to be in a "Films in the public domain" category, now removed, but without any reference. It is on IA with a "public domain" mention. Any idea? Yann (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That red link to a non-existing category was added without reference two days ago [4]. It was removed by the bot today because it's a link to a category that does not exist. The mentions at IA are notoriously unreliable to the point of being rather useless. All that does not tell any useful indication. But maybe you could ask to the user who added that red link if they have reliable information on the matter. If not, that would probably require the usual research, possibly complicated by the apparently complex colorization history. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
It's hard to tell if it was actually published in any way in 1933. Without that information, it's hard to tell whether it's actually in the PD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand. There is a copyright notice with the date 1933. Isn't that sufficient to establish the date of publication? I search for copyright renewal by Ted Eshbaugh, but I couldn't find anything. Could it be under another name? Yann (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I didn't watch the movie; yeah, a copyright notice makes a pretty strong presumption, and I didn't see renewals in the appropriate files. I think we're safe calling this PD-US-no renewal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Information about this film's release seems to be spotty. I didn't find much in reliable sources, other than that there was a lawsuit by Technicolor that blocked the initial release plans. Some unreliable sources (blogs/forums) say that it was released only in Canada. If that's true, then URAA restoration likely applies and the film is still copyrighted in the U.S. until 2029. Other sources say the film was never released, in which case it may be copyrighted until 2040 (70 years pma; producer Ted Eshbaugh died in 1969). (The film was released on video compilations in the 1980's, but it's not clear that those were authorized publications.) Toohool (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Toohool: How would prints get to Canada without being released to a common carrier? Doesn't that count as publication in the US?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Co-producer J.R. Booth owned Film Laboratories of Canada, the Canadian licensee for the Technicolor process, so it certainly seems plausible that he could have printed the film there and distributed it within the country. Toohool (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of logo from civil society organization with or without seeking permission

First up, I searched this site for prior advice without much success. I would like to add a low‑resolution bitmap of a logo to this particular article on Scientist Rebellion. And it would be easier for me not to have to seek permission. I now have a reasonable screenshot, improved by zooming in on my web‑browser. That logo measures 858 × 238px. I had guessed that I should be able to upload that particular PNG file under fair use arguments. But the upload wizard does not provide for fair use as an option. I would doubt if the logo has been trademarked anywhere, but I have not yet followed up that matter. How should I proceed? Do I need to talk to the organization? In which case, I imagine I will need to ask for a suitable open license, possibly the Creative Commons CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 license would be a good option? TIA. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison:
Commons does not accept images under fair use. You may upload fair use images to en.Wiki under certain conditions. Glrx (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi RobbieIanMorrison. If the logo is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection under US copyright law and the copyright law of its country of origin/first publication, then it might be OK to upload using the license {{PD-textlogo}}. It is, however, impossible to make such an assessment without actually seeing the logo. So, if you can provide a link to it, then that would be helpful. Otherwise, as pointed out above, you will need to get the COM:CONSENT of the logo's copyright holder because Commons doesn't accept any type of fair use/fair dealing content. Now, also as pointed out above, English Wikipedia does allow copyrighted content to be uploaded as non-free content, but English Wikipedia's non-free content use policy is much more restrictive than fair use as explained here. For example, English Wikipedia does generally allow non-free logos to be uploaded as long as they're being used for primary identification purposes at the tops of or in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about whatever the logo represents, but it typically doesn't allow allow such logos to be used in other articles or in other ways. So, if the logo you want to upload is the main logo used by "Scientist Rebellion" for branding purposes, it should be OK to upload as non-free content as long as it's used in the main infobox of the article about the organization; otherwise, it's going to be much harder and most likely impossible to justify the non-free use of the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
My thanks to Glrx and Marchjuly. I understand most of that discussion. (In passing, I know quite a lot about intellectual property law as it relates to data, please see: forum.openmod.org/t/4399.) I think I will contact Scientist Rebellion about licensing their logo under CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0. The logo is simple: just their name set in a typewriter font and the famous "climate stripes" incorporated below. For an example, see the top‑left here: scientistrebellion.org. If that effort fails, I will work my way thru the Wikipedia EN protocols for use via branding. Your answers much appreciated. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Since we already have File:20181204 Warming stripes (global, WMO, 1850-2018) - Climate Lab Book (Ed Hawkins).png, this logo seems acceptable under {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}. Yann (talk) 12:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
@RobbieIanMorrison: Can you upload it using {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}} and/or {{PD-ineligible}} without zooming in? We have scaling capability built in, as described at en:H:PIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I have contacted Scientist Rebellion to explore whether they would officially release under CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0. And I'd like to let that run a couple of days before doing something unilaterally. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Just adding the Scientist Rebellion style guide, albeit silent on licensing (except the loose terms of use for the XR hourglass symbol): scientistrebellion.org/docs/2/scientist-rebellion-design-and-style-guide.pdf RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Also the climate stripes are now being published under CC‑BY‑4.0: showyourstripes.info RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
If the stripes are CC-BY 4.0 and the rest of the logo is ineligible, then that's all we need. - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I have the style guide, the original font, and an SVG for the stripes, so I'll do this in Inkscape. I should add that the style guide encourages others to produce related material using their house style — although of course those sentiments are not sufficiently legal for Wikimedia. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Uploaded SVG file
I waited two days for a response from Scientist Rebellion, but nothing so far. Here is the SVG file I uploaded [depicted on right]. Thanks for everyones' help. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Apparent upload is File:Horizontal logo for Scientist Rebellion without fonts.svg. Glrx (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
... as displayed to the right.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Chart with data from a paywalled article

Total active mining equipment and electronic waste generation in the Bitcoin network over time.jpg uses {{PD-chart}} but I'm not sure it applies here. I asked the uploader (User_talk:JBchrch#Bitcoin_e-waste) but they're not active anymore.

My concern: two of the lines ("Total Active Mining Equipment" and "Electronic Waste Generation per Annum") may not be "information that is common property and contains no original authorship". They show data from a paywalled article (ScienceDirect) that is the result of the authors' calculation (contrary to the "Hashrate" that is public data available everywhere freely).

What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: Data generally can't be copyrighted, and I don't think there is anything copyrightable in that presentation of it. - Jmabel ! talk 01:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Seal of the Islamic State

I have found a HQ-version of the seal, which was used on many administrative documents, issued by the Islamic State (when it was a proto-state, and controlled large parts of Iraq and Syria). And I want to upload this seal to Commons. Can this seal be uploaded using {{PD-ineligible}}?

Seal: https://web.archive.org/web/20231210232546/https://i.ibb.co/cbBLpTS/IS-seal.png
Document, from which the seal was extracted: https://archive.org/details/gld-dnr-is-descrpt
A lot of different administrative documents, which use this seal:

صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@صلاح الأوكراني: Who is the author? When did they author it, in what state that is a member of the Berne Convention or any other copyright treaty?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The exact author is unknown. The seal was created by some administrative bodies of the Islamic State. And this seal was created on territories, which belong to Syria and Iraq, but at that time (2013—2019) were controlled and governed by the Islamic State. صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, That would be OK if it was in English. However some countries claim a copyright on calligraphy (e.g. China). And I don't speak Arabic, so I can't say if this is complex enough to get a copyright. Yann (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Yann Given COM:TOO Morocco this looks like at least copyright-able in Morocco, but for Iraq and Syria, there seems like lack of clarification from local users. Need inputs from Arabic-speaking Commons administrators: @Aude, Dyolf77, Mhhossein, Tarawneh, and علاء: Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I don't speak Arabic but this calligraphic seal seems to have a level of decorativeness. --Mhhossein talk 19:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Thanks. Please adjust your babel boxes and COM:A accordingly.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: You're welcome Jeff. If you are asking me to remove 'Ar' from the babel box, then I should say that I know the basics of Arabic, as I mentioned, but I don't speak Arabic as Liuxinyu970226's comment implies. --Mhhossein talk 19:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Ok.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

UPD: I have found a book (published in 1954), which uses on its cover page exactly the same font, as on the seal. So, it seems to me, that it could be a regular font for headings. — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@صلاح الأوكراني: that's the best evidence so far. I'd mention that in the "permissions" field if you are uploading as {{PD-textlogo}}. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I have uploaded it here: File:IS seal.png. Also I added in the “permissions” field some other examples of the font, used in the seal. — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Emblems of the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army and Boko Haram

Are these emblems simple enough to be uploaded to Commons using {{PD-ineligible}}?
Someone had already uploaded emblem of the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army to Commons, but the file (File:Khalid Ibn Walid Army.png) has a wrong license (the uploader is not an author). — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Emblems:

  • Khalid ibn al-Walid Army

https://web.archive.org/web/20231210233254/https://i.ibb.co/cbHYXgD/Jaysh-Khalid-ibn-al-Waleed-emblem.png
https://jihadintel.meforum.org/pics/symbols/764.jpg

  • Boko Haram

https://web.archive.org/web/20231210234113/https://i.ibb.co/kDqtNrP/Jam-at-Ahl-as-Sunnah-lid-Da-wah-wa-l-Jih-d-emblem.png
— Preceding unsigned comment added by صلاح الأوكراني (talk • contribs)

I think that, as in the similar case above, showing precedent for very similar calligraphy would be the key. - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I have decided to upload the emblem of the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army (File:Jaysh Khalid ibn al-Waleed emblem.png, File:Jaysh Khalid ibn al-Waleed emblem V.jpg), because it contains only simple sans-serif Arabic font (like Arial, for example). But the emblem of the Boko Haram is more complicated: it contains many decorative elements, which are used to fill in the blank space in the circle around the word „جماعة“. Such tradition is also common for some Arabic texts (headings), but in this case it could be above the threshold of originality. — صلاح الأوكراني (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the Boko Haram logo is way too complicated to claim that it is ineligible. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

EXIF data states "All rights reserved"

Is VRT permission usually required when the EXIF data for a file clearly gives the name of the copyright holder and lists the file as being "All rights reserved", but the account uploading the file is using a different name, the file is uploaded as "own work" and the licensing chosen is not the same? Are such conflicts between EXIF data and file description of a concern? I'm asking about File:Laura Collett.jpg, File:Rupert, Earl of Onslow.jpg and File:Belvoir-Hunt-Belvoir-Castle-14Mar15-179.jpg (and its crops). All three list the same person as the copyright holder in their respective EXIF data, which also states "All rights reserved". All three were uploaded by the same user, who also uploaded File:British Equestrian Media Association Logo.png as "own work". I've tagged the logo as a copvio because of COM:TOO UK and because it comes from bema.org.uk. If, however, you scroll down to the bottom of that website, you'll find the name of webhost is the same as the copyright holder given for aforementioned three photos. Should it just be assumed in this case that the copyright holder and uploader are the same based on en:User:Indomitable or should VRT permission still be required? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It seems very likely the photos are their own, but probably they should go through COM:VRT to get the account verified, to confirm that they are the same person who took the photos. Or they could simply link or acknowledge the account from any public-facing website or page that is clearly under their control, and then link back to that acknowledgement from their user page here. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I notified them of this discussion; so, perhaps they will see your post and do one of those things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
It's not that EXIF automatically means we need VRT, but more there being access to the files on the internet first (with the EXIF as well), such that anyone could have uploaded it. That may still be an issue here though the one I looked for is not easy to find these days without a watermark, though tineye indicated it may have been available in 2010 (no longer at that site), though don't know about EXIF. It's more the conditions at COM:VRT#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_VRT? which drive the need. If they could validate their account, that would probably be easiest. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This is correct @Marchjuly but thank you for raising it. I will follow the link and complete whatever is needed at COM:VRT. There are two other project invites that would benefit from my large archive of images so it would seem sensible. Indomitable (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This has now been done. Given the possible need for future use of my images by the Equine wikiproject, should I complete a more general email to the releases email addresses which connects my username with the copyright holder and allows all future use? Indomitable (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@Indomitable: yes, please. Verifying your account as being yours saves a lot of grief. (Pretty much always the case for someone who uploads a good deal of photography outside of this site, unless they always indicate a free license when they post anywhere.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Concern on Australian murals

There has been some inconsistent closures of deletion requests concerning Australian murals. Some resulted to deletions (example), while others resulted to being kept (example), on the basis that as per one sole court ruling as summarized at COM:FOP Australia, the "works of artistic craftsmanship" category extends to paintings like murals.

But I do not feel comfortable at relying on this jurisprudence, especially that Australian freedom of panorama – with regards to public monuments –is being criticized by the artists' societies and communities there, for being too open to the commercial reusers. This article, with an interview to an IP specialist lawyer, does imply that street art (murals for instance) are protected by copyright and cannot be reproduced in ad campaigns or other media that do not align with artists' values. Moreover, based on what I have read at FOP-Australia page, it only concerns the definition or categorization, and I do not see anything that directly refers to the commercial exploitations of street art.

It is better if there is a court case that is not geared at the definition of "works of artistic craftsmanship", but is geared to give the definitive answer if commercial exploitations of murals of Australia without artists' permits or licensing clearances is legal, which is the real essence of freedom of panorama; that is, free uses, sharing, and distributions of images of copyrighted public artworks without artists' permissions.

A reassessment on our very loose (and risky) acceptance of Australian street art (murals) should be made.

Ping everyone who participated in all threads of Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Australia: @Kerry Raymond, Ghouston, Jeff G., Clindberg, Chris.sherlock, Aymatth2, Nick-D, Deus et lex, Gnangarra, and SCHolar44: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"[I]n ad campaigns or other media that do not align with artists' values" seems more like some sort of moral rights issue than copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 01:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel moral rights, while distinct from economic rights, is connected to the rights of artists. This is evidenced in several U.S. FOP cases in real life, like those concerning Three Soldiersand Cloud Gate sculptures (elaborated in w:en:Freedom of panorama#United States). But anyway, the issue here is on the unusually-lenient consensus of Commons community on Australian murals even if that is inviting Trojan horses to Commons – the future DMCA take down notices from muralists of murals found in Australia. Note that these can be covered by U.S. copyright courtesy of COM:URAA too, and I wouldn't be surprised if both Australian and U.S. courts side with muralists instead of Wikimedia or Australian Wikimedians, even if the Australian law is taken into consideration by either U.S. or Australian courts. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: We could have a template incorporate that moral rights issue.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
A mural is a two-dimensional painting, a typical work of art. It is painted on plaster rather than on canvas, board, etc. but that does not affect its copyright status. A work of artistic craftsmanship is a functional object with artistic properties, typically something like a dress, plate or chair. The decision in Burge concerns a yacht, not a mural. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. If it can be described as a painting, it can't be a work of artistic craftsmanship. The Burge v Swarbrick was on the dividing line between what was a work of artistic craftsmanship, and just a work of craftsmanship -- i.e. the threshold of originality under which there is no copyright at all. The distinction between painting and a work of artistic craftsmanship is more on which type of copyright applies, and was not addressed by that court decision. The concerns about "ad campaigns or other media that do not align with artists' values" sounds like a law not yet written, or non-copyright aspects of other laws (perhaps including moral rights). I'm more concerned about what the law and courts say about the economic right itself. But as in the previous discussions, I can't see any basis in their law, or any referenced court cases, for a mural being a work of artistic craftsmanship -- it's a painting to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Since it is a matter of Australian law and there is an Australian court ruling, surely that court ruling represents the current state of Australian law. There will always be people who disagree with just about any court rulings, but unless those who disagree choose to engage in another court case, nothing changes. If they do engage in another court case, maybe there will be a different outcome and maybe there won't be. Although it may be different with graffitti (which is not commissioned and often removed), with most murals in Australia on buildings etc, these are usually commissioned works by businesses, town councils or governments, usually intended for promotional purposes (e.g. advertising, tourism) and will usually depict topics (e.g. history, local scenery) negotiated as part of that commission to serve the promotional purpose. People are encouraged to photograph such works and post them on social media etc (given the aim is to promotion). I think it unlikely that organisations would commission these murals if they believed that the Australian public could not photograph and share them. Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The problem is commercial use, and our policy -- sharing on social media etc. would likely come under fair dealing. Which is fine for most real life situations, but is not "free" in the meaning we need to host them per policy. Paintings are not part of the Australian "freedom of panorama" law, so we can't use that as an exception. Agreed that the court ruling represents the current state of the law, and we should follow it, but I can't see anything in that ruling which would make murals "works of artistic craftsmanship" -- they are paintings, and thus not part of the FoP exception, since that is limited to works of artistic craftsmanship. Which part of the ruling do people think supports paintings being treated as works of artistic craftsmanship? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond second in motion to Clindberg. The free sharing should always include commercial and profit-making purposes. If the allowed use is only for promotion of the municipalities of Australia, and not for exploitations in postcards, calendar designs, or even for-profit websites not connected to the promotion of municipalities (by website developers), then the murals are not 100% free for eexploitation without muralists' licensing permissions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 Comment it appears several images of Australian murals were successfully restored at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2019-12#File:Wyalkatchem recycling centre mural.jpg, despite the entire discussion heavily focused on the technical aspect of the term "work of artistic craftsmanship". The files should not have been restored and the entire discussion should have been redirected here, as I am not convinced of the applicability of the court ruling to the commercial exploitations of images of murals without permissions from muralists. SCHolar44 admitted here that Ms. Pila's article "does not really clarify the High Court judgement but only advances an argument that – convincing though it may be – asserts that the court's 'orthodox view' did not address a further factor, on which she expounds. As such, Ms Pila's article doesn't add to the factors applicable to contemporary considerations of FOP copyright, which is the subject of the section." Unfortunately, no one took notice of SCHolar44's concern. Some other user or admin should revisit her article to know the actual context of the term. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
A quick browse on Ms. Pila's article seems to solve the threshold of originality of works of artistic craftsmanship. It does not address the allowance of commercial uses of murals without muralists' permissions and that if such uses can be protected under the Australian FoP, which by itself is being criticized by several Australian and aborigine artists as being too open for commercial users to exploit Australian culture and heritage. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Are these photos from this press kit public domain?

I found this 1976 press kit of Thin Lizzy here, and while it originated from the US and is pre-1978, I was wondering if it'd be okay to upload them since the backs of the photos are not shown (in case there were any markings on the backs). From what I could tell publicity photos were generally not copyrighted but I'd like to be on the safe side. Note that I am a newer user here and may be missing something. Thanks! Dantus21 (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dantus21: I suppose you could ask the buyer or seller about what's on the backs of the photos and if the whole kit was copyrighted.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The site is paywalled for buying the products themselves, so sadly I can't contact the seller. However, I did notice some other photos on Commons that came from press kits and didn't show the back sides either, so are those okay? Here's an example of one here. Dantus21 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@Dantus21 From my experience, older music press kit photos very rarely put any sort of copyright notices on the front or the back. Up until the mid 1980s these images were generally left without notices to be distributed and published as far and wide as possible to promote the subject(s). In the mid/late 80s, notices began to appear - but always on the front - Example. I am yet to see a music press kit photo with a notice on the back. My understanding is that it was much easier to print on one side only, then to double print something, and they wanted you to see the notice with the photo. The only photographs I tend to see with notices on the back are News/TV Broadcast press photographs, which would have been stickered on by the photographer or publisher - Example. I try to avoid such photos if I cannot see the back, but the odds of having a notice only on the back is very unlikely. Definitely do reverse searches before uploading any images. You tend to find other copies on sites such as ebay and Worthpoint which may show the back/no watermarks. Also look in older newspapers or magazines which may have also published the photo with no notice. If you wanted to upload a photo from 1978-89 you will also have to search the US copyright registration site to check if it was registered 5 years after publication. Almost nobody did this - but still check. If seen a couple that actually did. This only applies to US press kits/publications. Do at your own risk. Hope this helps. PascalHD (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
This is extremely helpful! Thank you so much!! Dantus21 (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Bot wrongly flagging images as copyrighted

Hello! :) I am semi new to commons so forgive me if this is a silly question, but I'm not sure how to rectify this myself. Images by other people that I have uploaded keep getting flagged as copyrighted by User:INaturalistReviewBot. This has now happened with multiple images (examples [5] [6] [7] [8]) that are under a CC0 license and I have even reached out to the original photographers directly and obtained permission to reupload them here. How can I prevent this from continuing to happen in the future?

Thanks! Mercedes-Fletcher (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

On the file page, the page you give as source, [9], states that the licence is CC BY-NC (a non-commercial licence which is not acceptable to Commons). It may be worth getting in touch with the photographer and asking why the two pages differ. Voice of Clam 22:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hmm... I'll have to look into that then, thanks! Mercedes-Fletcher (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@Mercedes-Fletcher: Although the observation data is CC0, the photographs are CC BY-NC, and thus cannot be hosted on Commons. Nosferattus (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
That seems the case for observations 107130432 and 85380530. In other cases, there is also something more. The observation 175850542 includes two photos (or two versions of a photo). At the present time, the first photo 305646855 is CC0 and the second photo 305646873 is CC BY-NC. The observation 159962340 includes four photos. At the present time, the first photo is CC0 and the three other photos are CC BY-NC. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Handling contents of a Mojang repository as example

Hi!

I thought about this longer, but would like have some opinions about this. As many companies host free and Open Source software on GitHub, I stumbled over a repository by Mojang: https://github.com/Mojang/minecraft-legends-docs. The repository is copyrighted and licensed under the MIT License. The folder https://github.com/Mojang/minecraft-legends-docs/tree/main/images contains images, that are probably from the game Minecraft Legends itself (I am not a Minecraft player, so I cannot determine). Would the MIT license apply here or do we have to take something more into account?

Thanks, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Images that would go free years down the line

From what I remember, the way to preserve such images was to upload them to Commons and then instantly nominate them for deletion on copyright grounds; that way they can be undeleted when the time comes (and I'm long dead). Can you please be so kind and remind me how to do that properly? -- Wesha (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wesha: You may add Category:Undelete in 2024 for works expiring this year, or any other similarly named category, to the subpage after you nominate for deletion.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, that's it! -- Wesha (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Wesha: You're welcome!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Just remember that the category has to go on the deletion request. Otherwise, it will just be deleted along with the file. - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Los Angeles government Flickr accounts

The template PD-CAGov states that "any government entity which derives its power from the State cannot enforce a copyright", which applies to the websites of city governments (such as Los Angeles), but I was wondering if that would apply to official city government accounts on Flickr. For example, the accounts of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, a Los Angeles city department, and accounts for various city councilmembers like Paul Krekorian, Bob Blumenfield, and Curren Price are linked from he official websites, but all have "All rights reserved" as their license. Could they be uploaded under PD-CAGov like if they were images from the city websites? reppoptalk 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Reppop: I guess they didn't get the memo.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Or they are using the default license on Flickr (All Rights Reserved.). Abzeronow (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Reppop: I think the works of a city department could be uploaded under PD-CAGov like if they were images from the city websites if they are not on the list of "Agencies permitted to claim copyright" embedded in Template:PD-CAGov/en. I don't think the works of the LA Mayor and city councilmembers could be uploaded under PD-CAGov like if they were images from the city websites, because those people are not agencies.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
So would the Mayor and councilmembers not count as part of a government unit (since they're part of the Los Angeles government)? reppoptalk 00:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Reppop: I can't read the linked law right now, and archive.org just shows me headings. Perhaps someone else (maybe in California or with access to the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.)) can chime in here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
From https://www.oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/summary_public_records_act.pdf, "(a) “State agency” means every state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and
commission or other state body or agency, except those agencies provided for in Article IV
(except Section 20 thereof) or Article VI of the California Constitution.
(b) “Local agency” includes a county; city, whether general law or chartered; city and county;
school district; municipal corporation; district; political subdivision; or any board, commission
or agency thereof; other local public agency; or entities that are legislative bodies of a local
agency pursuant to subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 54952.". So the Mayor and city council members are considered part of an agency by the CPRA. Abzeronow (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Abzeronow: Thanks! Would you please update the template? So @Reppop can upload from any of the sources mentioned.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
So how would the Flickr link work with the Flickreview and upload process, since the images have the "All rights reserved" license? reppoptalk 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Reppop: It would be a manual process, unless you can convince those officials and that agency to change Flickr licenses.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! reppoptalk 23:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Reppop: You're welcome!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Would this also apply to images posted on Facebook or Twitter/X accounts of Los Angeles City government accounts, such as councillors? PascalHD (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it does apply to social media accounts that are official City government accounts. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Bot queries copyright status, but I can't see a problem

I've uploaded File:Admiralty Chart No 216a Mergui Archiplelago Northern Part, Published 1830, New Edition 1938.jpg which is out of copyright as it is subject to Crown Copyright which expires 50 years after publication. This was scanned from the original paper chart, and the copyright status indicated with the template PD-UKGov. AntiCompositeBot has flagged this as "copyright status is unclear". I cannot see any problem, and I have uploaded many hundreds of charts with this template. The bot does not give specific details of the problem, and I have checked that the copyright template is correct. No warning template has been added to the entry. How do I deal with this- can I simply ignore it? Thanks Kognos (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Kognos: Abzeronow fixed it for you in this edit. Please apply that earlier in your upload method.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
OK, so it had already been fixed when I checked, which is why I couldnt see a problem... Thanks Kognos (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Kognos: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Website states "Images License Free"

The following website states "Images are license free with no restrictions".

Does this mean I can use the images for Commons? Wikipedia? Does it mean all personnel images and logos?

Thanks in advance. Chavmen (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, This seems OK, however I wonder how they come to this conclusion. There is no information about the photographer(s), and the source of the images. It would be better if they mention a free license, and the photographer(s)' name. Yann (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure, I would assume it is them personally in the images seeing as it's an organisation website. But I can contact to ask I guess. Chavmen (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Chavmen: Photos are copyrighted by their photographers (not their subjects) automatically at the time of creation in most countries per the en:Berne Convention.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Okay thanks. Chavmen (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd say their intent is clear, but their execution was poor. I'm sure they'd be open to granting the permissions that are needed, but they'll probably need some guidance through how to do that. Among other things, "license free" means "there is no license," which is presumably the opposite of what they meant to say. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

US Tag for File:Greenspan testimony at Eichman trial1961.jpg

The description of the license tag of File:Greenspan testimony at Eichman trial1961.jpg says that it need an additional tag for the US. Does someone know which tag would be appropriate? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Added {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} warning, the file was originally uploaded January 1, 2012 (which was before Golan vs. Holder was decided on January 18, 2012), so it should be fine to keep. Abzeronow (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the issue! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Commons images used elsewhere without attribution.

Hi,
Is there a procedure to report use outside Wikimedia and without attribution, of an image from Commons? Does Wikimedia police improper use of Commons images? Under heading "Images" in https://academic-accelerator.com/encyclopedia/oberon-operating-system are four images pinched from Category:Oberon_(operating_system).

The Help information I found is about bringing images into Commons.

Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: The entire https://academic-accelerator.com/ website appears to be ripping off the copyrighted content of English Wikipedia, along with the images, with no licensing in sight. It lists contact@academic-accelerator.com as the contact. Anyone can file a DMCA claim if any of their content is infringed. Anyone can also use {{Published}}. Nameservers and protection by cloudflare via their datacenter in San Francisco, CA, USA. Privacy by withheldforprivacy.com. For instance, my paragraph about IP address conflicts, which I wrote in en:special:diff/680930058 04:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC), is on https://academic-accelerator.com/encyclopedia/ip-address without credit. My contributions to English Wikipedia were "Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0", and copyrighted since I started contributing there. I just extended them to 4.0.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to submit a complaint at https://abuse.cloudflare.com/dmca. Nosferattus (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: ✓ Done and thanks!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, it looks like the site is hosted by Digital Ocean (abuse@digitalocean.com). Nosferattus (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: Thanks! How did you determine that? I reported it to both CloudFlare and Digital Ocean.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Digital Ocean just provides virtual servers (I know because I have one, it's where I host my own websites). They have roughly zero clue about the content of any of those servers. - Jmabel ! talk 08:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel, PeterEasthope, and Nosferattus: Yesterday, I actually got a reply from "Security Operations Center" at DigitalOcean that "A staff member has reviewed the details and located the associated account. The issue will be reviewed and resolved as soon as possible." My content disappeared. So did the images at https://academic-accelerator.com/encyclopedia/oberon-operating-system (but not the text).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: impressive. Better response than I've had with them on tech issues as a paying customer. - Jmabel ! talk 00:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Also: you can put {{Published}} on the relevant file talk page with "legal=no". - Jmabel ! talk 06:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Koyaanisqatsi trailer

Is this Koyaanisqatsi trailer in the public domain as per {{PD-US-1978-89}}? It has no copyright notice, and the only registration for Motion Pictures [where I think trailers should be registered as, PA0000661609/RE0000644700 is the registration for the trailer of Blood Feast (1963)] under the name of Koyaanisqatsi is the main film itself, under the registration number PA0000184721. Lugamo94 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-free artwork

I just hit upon a whole category filled with artwork from an artist who died in 1998, thus certainly has not been dead long enough for this to be free of copyright. There is another category that seems to include the identical images, not sure what the reasoning is behind that. Not sure how to handle such a mass of images efficiently, can someone help please? Thanks, --2003:C0:8F3B:CB00:1CE6:9527:6077:CCB3 13:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Courtesy ping for @Bybbisch94: . GMGtalk 13:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
    {| class="wikitable"
    |These works or the works of this artist may not be in the public domain because the artist is still alive or died less than 70 years ago. Please do not upload photos or scans of this artist's work unless they fall under one of the following exceptions: * The work was first published in the United States and one of the USA public domain tags applies. * The photo of the work falls under a legal exception such as the Panoramafreiheit or de minimis (non-essential accessory). * The work was expressly released for further commercial use by the author or his heirs in an email to Wikimedia Commons. * The work has been published by the author on his website or with an official account on a website such as Flickr in each case under a free license. *The work is in the public domain for another clear reason. Works by this artist published before 1928 can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia (see en:Template:PD-US-expired-abroad). Further information can be found at Commons:Licenses and Commons:Editions. |}
    |Diese Werke oder die Werke dieses Künstlers sind möglicherweise nicht gemeinfrei, weil der Künstler noch lebt oder vor weniger als 70 Jahren verstorben ist. Bitte lade keine Fotos oder Scans von Werken dieses Künstlers hoch, es sei denn, sie fallen unter eine der folgenden Ausnahmen:
    • Das Werk wurde zuerst in den Vereinigten Staaten veröffentlicht und eines der Public-Domain-Tags für die USA gilt.
    • Das Foto des Werkes fällt unter eine gesetzliche Ausnahme wie die Panoramafreiheit oder de minimis (unwesentliches Beiwerk).
    • Das Werk wurde vom Urheber oder seinen Erben in einer E-Mail an Wikimedia Commons ausdrücklich für eine kommerzielle Weiternutzung freigegeben.
    • Das Werk wurde vom Urheber auf dessen Website oder mit einem offiziellen Konto auf einer Website wie Flickr jeweils unter einer freien Lizenz veröffentlicht.
    • Das Werk ist aus einem anderen klaren Grund gemeinfrei.Arbeiten dieses Künstlers, die vor 1928 veröffentlicht wurden, können auf der englischen Wikipedia hochgeladen werden (siehe en:Template:PD-US-expired-abroad). Weitere Informationen findest Du unter Commons:Lizenzen und Commons:Bearbeitungen.
    |} Bybbisch94 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
None of those exceptions seems to apply here.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The work was expressly released for further commercial use by the author or his heirs in an email to Wikimedia Commons.The work was expressly released for further commercial use by the author or his heirs in an email to Wikimedia Commons. The usage rights were submitted to German Wikipedia on March 8, 2017, but it took some time until they were finally approved. By the way, for information, on August 3, 2023 I asked permissions-de@wikimedia.org whether the exemption also applies to drawings by the artist. The answer was: is valid. Bybbisch94 (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Das Werk wurde vom Urheber oder seinen Erben in einer E-Mail an Wikimedia Commons ausdrücklich für eine kommerzielle Weiternutzung freigegeben. Die Nutzungsrechte wurden am 8.3.2017 bei German Wikipedia eingereicht bis zur endgültigen Freigabe hat es allerdings etwas gedauert. Übrigens zur Information, am 3.8.23 habe ich bei permissions-de@wikimedia.org dazu nachgefragt, ob die Freistellung auch für Zeichnungen des Künstlers gilt. Die Antwort lautete: ist gültig. Bybbisch94 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
OK. Which work by the artist has the VRT ticket number? If that is applicable to many works of the author (not just specific named ones), seems like it should be linked from the category. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

"Country of origin" question

It would be useful to have someone weigh in at Commons:Deletion requests/File:The return of the soldier (IA returnofsoldier00west2).pdf who has been more involved than I in Commons' policy for what we consider "country of origin" for works. The issue here: UK author, first publication in the US in March 1918, published in the UK in June 1918, author died in 1983. Clearly URAA doesn't arise because of original US publication. The question is, if a British author published first in the U.S., do we defer to the UK's 70 years p.m.a.? EncycloPetey, please do indicate if there is anything you feel is biased in how I've stated this, or if I've left out anything you think should be said.

Please respond on the DR rather than here, unless it's something about how I've worded this. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The DR is closed, but in the Berne Convention, it's always the country of first publication, regardless of nationality of the author. If published in another country within 30 days of the first publication, it's "simultaneous publication", where there are other tiebreakers. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that was what I'd said there, but I was trying to be neutral here since there was disagreement. - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

FOP Madagascar

I was wondering if this file is okay to upload here? Syrus257 (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Syrus257 it is fine, as I don't see anything that can be considered as copyrightable, like a contemporary work of sculpture or architecture. The building to the right is out of central focus, but if it were in focus, I think its architect or designer has died a very long, long time ago. So go and import it here! JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 Thanks. What if I wanted to upload images of some random village house just made out of mud or stones? Would they be considered as copyrighted material? Syrus257 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@Syrus257 if the design of a Madagascan random house exhibits architectural qualities (meeting with threshold of originality), then the image may not be fine for uploading here (unless it is already old enough that the designer has died more than 70 years ago, to pass {{PD-old-architecture}}). But I think most rural or native houses of Madagascar are of traditional designs passed down through generations so maybe not copyrightable (I am not an expert in Madagascan architecture so I may be wrong though). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@JWilz12345 Understood. Thanks so much. Syrus257 (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

What license are these under?

Hello!

I am asking about Category:SVG proposed flags of Minnesota, because all of them have a {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} license tag and list the authors as SVG-image-maker.

This is obviously incorrect, but I'm wondering if there is any information about whether the flag proposals are freely licensed or in the public domain? QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 07:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: I changed the authors to properly credit them. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 08:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
There can be authorship in the vector points chosen in the SVG, if they were done manually -- so the license is not necessarily wrong. Crediting yourself as the vectorizer is probably less correct than the initial attribution, unless you redid it from scratch (as opposed to processing the original vectorization through a program). However, unless the original flags are PD-ineligible or there is some sort of license or explicit abandonment of copyright when filing the proposals, they would be derivative works of the original flags I think. The state submission rules are here; it seems as though the submissions become the property of the state government, and not freely licensed or public domain. So these could be issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg:

Upon submission [...] all entries and submissions shall become the sole property of the State of Minnesota [...]

OK, so let me just check whether Minnesota government works are in the public domain or not...
I am going to jump off of a bridge. [sarcasm]
At least most of them seem like they could at least be {{PD-Shape}}. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 15:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, I have noticed that the de facto consensus (based on some quick file sampling), at least for proposed flags, is that the person (typically the uploader) that created the vector file is listed as the copyright holder. As the uploader of these files, I can confirm that I did indeed create the vector files. I know from experience, that a distinctive feature of traced bitmaps is that they have incredibly blurry outlines. SVG-image-maker (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
@SVG-image-maker: Hello! Just a comment, I noticed the files you vectorized were made with Inkscape.
By default, Inkscape saves SVGs in a very bloated format, so it's good practice to click on "File" → "Save as" (Ctrl + Shift + S), and choose "Optimized SVG" or even "Plain SVG".
This can help reduce file size significantly. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 06:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Also, for very simple designs like some of the ones in the proposals, I find it better to just manually write out the SVG file, because Inkscape also has some weird quirks where it has some inaccuracy (e.g. viewBox="0 0 1000 600.00001" etc.) QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 06:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

WokelyCorrect Comics

An account on X called WokelyCorrect Comics replied to one of their posts by saying, "[Y]ou are free to repost/use any of my comics anywhere for anything. No need to @, I really don’t care." Does this qualify as {{Copyrighted free use}}? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

(1) Probably good enough, as far as license is concerned. (2) Are they in scope? If one of our own contributors posted these, they would almost certainly not be. Is this person notable enough to make their work in scope? I'll admit it's hard for me to weigh this even-handedly: I find their politics appalling, so I am in no position to be the one who makes the decision. - Jmabel ! talk 06:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@JohnCWiesenthal and Jmabel: A bit off-topic, but this guy is concerningly racist.
I know Wikipedia has w:MOS:LABEL and some policies about libel, but I can pretty confidently say he's a racist. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 06:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
I think his posts are satirical, not racist, like many other political cartoons. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Again, I can say confidently that if a normal user uploaded these as their own work, the images would be deleted as out of scope. It's all going to come down to demonstrating the notability of the cartoon or its creator. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Taxons

Would someone who knows more than I do about taxon categories please have a look at Category:Glicophyllum stylopterum and see if I got it right in trying to fix that? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Icelandic Meteorological Office

Hi, Some people say there is a free license at the source, but I don't see any on Icelandic Meteorological Office website. Is it me or what? Yann (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann Term 1 at https://www.vedur.is/um-vi/vefurinn/notkunarskilmalar/ reads "Gögn og ljósmyndir sem birt eru á vefsíðum og gagnaþjónum Veðurstofunnar eru til frjálsra afnota nema annað sé tekið fram, enda sé uppruna gagna getið (hvaðan og hvenær gögnum var hlaðið niður). ef þau eru birt eða notuð af öðrum til útgáfu, framsetningar eða annarrar þróunar. Þetta á einnig við um myndræna framsetningu ofangreindra gagna. Afnotaréttur gagna er ekki takmarkaður, hvorki til einkanota né í viðskiptalegum tilgangi, nema þess sé sérstaklega getið." in Icelandic, Google translated to "Data and photographs published on the Norwegian Meteorological Agency's websites and data servers are for free use unless otherwise stated, as long as the source of the data is mentioned (from where and when the data was downloaded). if they are published or used by others for publication, presentation or other development. This also applies to the graphical representation of the above data. The right to use the data is not restricted, neither for personal use nor for commercial purposes, unless specifically mentioned." in English. Term 7 at that page reads "Öllum er frjálst að vista hjá sér þær ljósmyndir sem birtast á vefnum (þær eru í lágri upplausn)" in Icelandic or "Everyone is free to save the photographs that appear on the web (they are in low resolution)" in English. I think that {{Attribution only license}} was applied correctly.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong architectural permission?

Category:Volyn Music and Drama Theatre claims there is permission from architect Borys Zhezherin. However, per w:uk:Волинський обласний академічний музично-драматичний театр імені Тараса Шевченка, the architect of the current theater building is actually "Олександра Крилова" (the article does not state Borys Zhezherin as being co-architect). Is the permission wrong in the first place? I need more inputs before proceeding to deletion request. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Ping @Микола Василечко: to confirm who is or are the real architects of this building. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Volyn Music and Drama Theatre is Волинський обласний академічний музично-драматичний театр імені Тараса Шевченка From ukwiki (biography of Borys Zhezherin): "Автор будівель театру опери та балету у Дніпропетровську, музично-драматичних театрів у Житомирі, Ужгороді, Сімферополі, Івано-Франковську, Полтаві, Рівному, Луцьку, Херсоні, Маріуполі, Хмельницькому та ін." But from page of Theatre: "Теперішня споруда драмтеатру була спроектована у Києві в 1965 році архітектором Олександрою Криловою." I don't know where the truth. VTRS permission (ticket #2015022810011636) add NickK. We need to ask him: from whom the permission, if Zhezerin died in 2006? --Микола Василечко (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@Микола Василечко: I am not a part of the VRT, AFAIK it was processed by @Ahonc: . I was however aware of the process: the permission was signed by his son uk:Жежерін Вадим Борисович who is the heir of Borys Zhezherin, and Borys Zhezherin was indeed a co-author of all the mentioned theaters, as confirmed by the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine. To my best knowledge Zhezherin was the lead architect of theaters in multiple cities and Krylova was the local co-author in Lutsk. From the copyright perspective both Zhezherin and Krylova are co-copyright holders for Volyn Music and Drama Theatre, and per Ukrainian copyright law a permission from one co-author is sufficient unless there is an evidence of a different agreement between co-authors — NickK (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes. It was permission from Vadym Zhezherin. And Lutsk theater is in the list of buildings in letter. And according the Urkainain copyright law: Якщо твір, створений у співавторстві, становить нерозривне ціле та інше не передбачено договором або цим Законом: … жоден із співавторів не має права без достатніх підстав відмовити іншим співавторам у наданні дозволу на опублікування, на переробку такого твору. — Any co-author cannot forbid other co-authors to give permission.--Anatoliy 🇺🇦 (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
@NickK@Ahonc at the very least the Ukrainian Wikipedia article of the theater should mention the other architects involved in the construction. I assume the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine is a reliable source in ukwiki. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
It's a common issue with Soviet-era projects. Full formal lists of credits were sometimes published in professional magazines, but the press in general mentioned only one name (could be the actual lead architect or the boss of the firm). If the building wasn't ever featured in the press or academic research - only the archives can tell. Retired electrician (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Temporary works under Singapore's FOP

Would File:Yayoi Kusama - Ascension of Polkadots on the Trees.JPG and File:Orchard Road 3, Singapore Biennale 2006, Oct 06.JPG be considered "temporary works" under COM:FOP Singapore? I'm assuming, but am not sure, that the trees decorated in this photo are actual trees and not some permanent display, and they only appeared as such for a set period of time, perhaps only during Singapore's 2006 biennale celebrations. If the artwork/trees weren't intended to be a permenant display, then it would seem that these photos can't be kept by Commons per Singapore's FOP without the artist's COM:CONSENT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Are the designs on the tree copyrightable in the first place though? Because to me it seems like they're only made up of circles of different sizes. And while COM:TOO Singapore is very low I can't imagine circles being able to gain copyright. S5A-0043Talk 02:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be a matter of their collective placement, rather than each individual circle. We wouldn't say Georges Seurat's works couldn't have been copyrightable because each dab of paint is so simple. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
The white circles are almost certainly not eligible for copyright protection as individual elements, but they way they're combined together into a polkadot pattern as the final work might be. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd rather treat with some caution: the artist seems to be conscious on the copyright of her artworks:
"The right to use images of YAYOI KUSAMA Artwork
YAYOI KUSAMA provides users with rules of copyright.
Those who want to use images need to make inquiries at the studio in advance."
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
It's also important to note Singapore is a common law country and presumably has a low ToO. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Rogério da Silva Santana

rogerio da Silva Santana Responde não (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

PD-MAGov

Is this image in the public domain? There's this template, which states that it is, but on Flickr, it's released under a non-commercial license. Is this an instance of copyfraud (the governor's office falsely claiming copyright)? Bremps... 22:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bremps. According to Harvard's State Copyright Resource Center, Massachusetts is light green, which means the copyright status of works created by state employees as part of their official duties is unclear but leaning in the direction of presumptively being within the public domain. Likely pretty much everything on WMF websites, {{PD-MAGov}} is user created and not something officially created by the WMF. There's no discussion about the validity of the license on the template's corresponding talk page and there doesn't appear to be any detailed discussion about it in the VPC (Village pump/Copyright) archives. The template includes a link to sec.state.ma.us/ARC/arcres/residx.htm, but the page connected to that link has been "moved". One thing about these PD licenses is that if a work was created by someone other than an official state employee or by a state employee but not as part of their official duties, then the PD license might not be applicable. Another possibility is that Massachusetts copyright changed since the template was created and the template was never updated to reflect this. Finally, another possibility could be "copyfraud" but of an unintentional nature by someone managing the Flickr account who just isn't familiar with Massachusetts copyright law. Did you try contacting the Flickr account holder to seek clarification on the photo's licensing? FWIW, I did find this article stating that the Massachusetts' Governor's Office is claiming it's exempt from the state's public records law, and maybe they've taken that to apply to copyrights as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Marchjuly,
thanks for the response. I tried messaging them on Flickr, but no one has responded yet. How would you recommend I proceed?
Best,
Bremps... 23:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Conflicting licenses

Hi, What do think about the license of File:Sector Berlin Biographie Ceuse France.jpg? There is a free license at [10], but the image itself is CC by-nc-nd (click on the image, and then on (i) ). Yann (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Bonjour, L'explication semble se trouver dans licences-des-contenus. Lorsque l'image est marquée «collaborative», elle est sous la licence by-sa. Lorsqu'une image est marquée «individuel», elle est sous la licence by-nc-nd. Celle-ci est marquée «individuel». Une image différente du même groupe est marquée «collaborative». Il n'y a pas de conflit. La licence qui est spécifique à une image s'applique à cette image. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded this image and assumed that everything on from 'Camptocamp.org' was by-sa. Didn't realise that individual images could have more restricted licensing. Sorry. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
OK, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sector Berlin Biographie Ceuse France.jpg‎. Yann (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@Aszx5000: You could ask on Camptocamp that they change the license. Yann (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Yann. Would that help with these two images (especially the second), or given that the author filed it as nc-nd, it is too late? It is such a pity that so many amateur photographers upload images that will never (ever) have any commercial value, but they could be useful to Wikipedia, but in 99.99% of cases they avoid a completely free license. I wonder if these sites added a option saying "Do you want to use a licence that would make your image eligible for use on Wikipedia?", then that might change things. Flickr is drowning in excellent examples that we can never use. Frustrating when trying to construct good articles on en-WP. Thanks again, and sorry for the trouble. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Aszx5000: It can always be undeleted, so it is never too late. Yann (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Aszx5000: The licensing page of Camptocamp, linked above, says that a contributor can choose to offer a contribution under the label «individuel» with the non-free license or «collaborative» with the free license. If you can reach the photographer, there is a good chance that they would accept to offer the free license. The site Camptocamp seems to work much like the site inaturalist. Sometimes, the first photo in a page is labeled with the free license, but not the other photos. That may be what the contributor intended to do, but it leaves the impression that maybe they wanted to offer all the photos in the same series under the free license but they just forgot thst each photo must be tagged separately. See for example a case discussed recently here in connection with the photographer's comments in the discussion at inaturalist. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Caffenio logo under US Copyright?

im working on a wikipedia page for a mexican coffee chain and the topic of wether their image is protected under creative commons came up and i honestly did my research but to no avail it gets more complicated knowing this is international and not bound by US copyright laws. can anyone help me confirm their logo is free to use it would be very much appreciated! the official companies website is listed down below

[11]https://caffenio.com/cafeterias/inicio/ Mochatbh (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

It's all going to be about threshold of originality. I think this is too simple to be eligible for U.S. copyright, but someone more expert may disagree. Give them a day or two to speak up. - Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I would put the logo above TOO-US. There are 4 colored ovals (by themselves would be below TOO), but the curved lines through those ovals suggest coffee beans. Thats creative enough to match the American Airlines logo. Glrx (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Recent CQ/Roll Call images

I've seen a bunch of newer images from Getty Images that were from photographers for CQ/Roll Call that use {{PD-CQ Roll Call}}. The template states that the license is for images from the CQ Roll Call photograph collection that was gifted to the the Library of Congress, which seems to stop at 2000 (for the Roll Call portion) and at 2010 (for the CQ portion). The list of photographers seems to apply for those that are included in the collection, but I was wondering if it should apply to newer photographs, or if they would have a copyright if they're not specifically in the collection.

Red-tailed hawk opened a discussion here months ago but nothing came of it. reppoptalk 07:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

RE: Query on a few photos uploaded to WC

Hi,

Good evening.

The vast majority of the over 300 photos I have uploaded to WC are of public places and taken with my own camera and not copyrighted.

However I have a few photos uploaded recently of:

1) Some quotes saved as jpegs from some writers who write about spirituality.

2 Some photos of some drinking cups (tea cups) with Irish language names.

3) Some photos of some Irish language fridge magnets.

Do I have to delete all these 3 kinds of photos / images? I uploaded them under the wrong category (I pressed "own work" without thinking much about it because most of my photos are usually my own work

with no question mark over copyright).

Regards,

Darren Darren J. Prior (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The quotes are outside of Commons:Project scope per Excluded educational content.
I'm also a bit concerned about video uploads (such as File:Cannabis addiction in Ireland - Dr. Bobby Smyth - Near FM (2018).ogg). Do you own the copyright to the photo of the police officers? Or ones like File:92.5 Phoenix FM @ 25 - Near FM & Raidió na Life 2015 (EN GA).ogg, where the copyright owners are probably 92.5 Phoenix FM and the person who took the photo of the city. Bremps... 23:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I will add a delete quickly notice if I have to to the quotes and fridge magnets and cups jpegs.
And the cannabis and Phoenix FM files.
Are there any more you want me to delete?
Can you tell me so I can get this sorted out sooner rather than later? Darren J. Prior (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Can an image (photograph/scan) of an ancient skeleton be copyrighted?

This relates to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vertebras cervicais.png where images of a centuries old skeleton have been included in an academic paper. The academic paper has a copyright from 2007. Can an image of a PD 3D object attract copyright? In principle, there could be choices of camera angle and lighting. However, the skeleton is described as being from a Portuguese graveyard and the authors are from Portugal, suggesting that Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Portugal applies here. Reading that guidance, COM:TOO Portugal says that, a "Heart reproduction commissioned to a laboratory in order to be presented in an exposition [was] Ruled as without originality." My interpretation is that would mean an image of an ancient skeleton would also be deemed to be without originality in Portugal and thus PD. Does that seem like a reasonable argument or am I missing something? From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely such a thing can be copyrighted. Whether a particular image rises to the threshold of originality may be an open question, but certainly the fact that the subject of a photo is a skeleton can't exempt it from copyright. Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Copyright situation of Greek army flags

How do see the copyright situation for the flag images in Category:Army flags of Greece? In Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Greece#Not protected I only see textual information mentioned; also the phrasing of Template:PD-GreekGov*) is about text. For some of the images in the category exist versions in enwiki and elwiki, which are hosted in these under fair use conditions. Strange enough, some of the images from Commons are used in enwiki, though. My actual, original goal was finding a larger version of File:20th Armored Division of the Hellenic Army.jpg which is used in dewiki because of the text string, but this is hardly readable, and on searching I found en:File:20th Armoured Division Emblem Greece.jpg and el:Αρχείο:20th Armoured Division (Greece flag).png.
*) Not that one of the external links in the template is dead and the other points to a superseded law version. — Speravir – 22:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet-logoo.png seems to be incorrectly licensed even if COM:Poland is somehow considered to be its country of first publication (which seems odd given that en:Chevrolet initially started using the logo in the US). The question is whether the logo would be considered too simple to be eligible for copy protection per COM:TOO United States. If it is, then probably all that is needed is to convert the file's licensing to {{PD-logo}}. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it was uploaded with a Creative Commons-self licence and no indication of a relationship to Poland. An IP editor changed it in November 2023 to have a PD template for Polish government symbols. I think it is safe to rule out the Polish connection. I'm not too familiar with COM:TOO United States, so hopefully someone else can answer that point. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What's our current policy on images taken by security cameras in the United States?

It is my understanding that the copyright status of images taken by pre-positioned recording devices in the U.S. is currently unclear. Wikipedia tends to treat them as non-free, and images such as en:File:2023 Lewiston shooting.jpg and en:File:07-17-2016BatonRougeshooting.jpg are marked as fair use. However, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-automated was closed as keep earlier this year, and the overall consensus was that such images are not copyrightable. Does this change anything with regards to our licensing policies? Can we move such images to Commons? Ixfd64 (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Di (they-them), The Black Revolutionary 2006 for their opinions as Fair Use uploaders of the two mentioned files.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I invited them to join this discussion on their user talk pages.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Never knew about this. The Black Revolutionary 2006 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
CCTV images usually accepted with {{PD-ineligible}}. Yann (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
That varies from country to country, but generally in the US, what Yann says is true about CCTV images. Abzeronow (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Honest question: How is that different from setting a timer on a camera and then running to get in the shot? GMGtalk 18:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Timer or no, the photographer set up the shot. In a security camera case, there's no artistic aspect of setting up the shot and no control over who or exactly what is in the shot, or even intent to try.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
(via edit conflict, and saying more or less the same) @GreenMeansGo: because in that case you have a specific intent about what you will photograph, comparable to the intent of any other photographer. The fact that there is a shutter delay doesn't change much. But installing a camera, having it run for years and capture whatever happens in front of it (mostly nothing, as a rule) is rather different in intent. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Essentially the utilitarian rather than creative purpose of CCTV. That's what I figured but I was trying to think of counterexamples. If someone set up a camera with the intent to capture foot traffic in Time Square for a documentary, there is still the creative intentionality behind the remote recording. GMGtalk 19:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Not necessarily. U.S. courts have ruled David Slater, who specifically set up his camera equipment to get a monkey to take a selfie, did not own the rights to the image. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe that's the courts ruled on that. A court ruled that the monkey didn't own the copyright, but Slater has never sued someone for reusing the image and brought that issue into court. Also, whether or not he "specifically set up his camera equipment to get a monkey to take a selfie" is a factual matter that would probably be contested by the defendants.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Unless there are any objections, then I plan to start moving them to Commons soon. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Note that no-free images on en.WP are reduced in resolution; we should grab the higher resolution versions from the database (or higher-still from the original source, if available). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I always upload the original image if it is available. Ixfd64 (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe worth summarising at Com:CCTV? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

RE: reference against a National Geographic article that states a fact.

The article 'New Life for The Loneliest Isle' from National Geographic Magazine, 1950, page 111, references a ship's figurehead found on Tristan da Cunha as coming from the Admiral Karpfanger.

I am interested in editing the Admiral Karpfanger page to cross reference the figurehead mystery with Tristan da Cunha. There are very few references to the figurehead online and there is doubt regarding the figurehead source

Can I reference the page showing the figurehead and the comment as it coming from the Admiral Karpfanger? I have my own scanned image of the single National Geographic page showing the figurehead and the reference to the ship.

I also have a scanned family archival image of the figurehead, but without the 'National Geographic' cross reference, the link to the Admiral Karpfanger is vague.

Thankyou. Peter Neaum (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

@Peter Neaum: I'm missing context here: reference it where? Usually Commons isn't particularly concerned with formal referencing, except maybe for maps and charts. I see you say, "the Admiral Karpfanger page"; did you possibly mean to ask this question on the English-language Wikipedia (a separate site, but also a WMF project)? Yes, National Geographic would generally be considered a reliable source in Wikipedia.
If that doesn't answer your question, adding links to what you are referring to might make it clearer. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Thankyou. I was going to upload an image of the page and reference that as both the source of the fact, and as an image of the figurehead.
Information I looked up implied that 1950 is still under copyright, even though the scan is my creation.
I was going to reference the page (which I'll upload to wiki commons) off the Admiral Karpfanger ship page - saying it was suggested the figurehead washed ashore Tristan da Cunga (as noted by National Geographic).
I guess I'm asking - If I create a scan of the page, while it is my own creation, am I breaking copyright? Peter Neaum (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Peter Neaum: you won't get in any trouble for scanning the page, but you should not publish it (and, especially, please, not here on Commons).
I don't understand why you seem to feel a need to put it on line. It doesn't need to be on line to be cited. - Jmabel ! talk 03:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Peter Neaum: Please take a look at references 11, 14, 15, 19 and 21 on en:Robert Sténuit for examples of how you can reference National Geographic without having to upload an image of a page. If you need more help with editing English Wikipedia, you may want to try en:Wikipedia:Teahouse. From Hill To Shore (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel@From Hill To Shore Thankyou Both. I'll copy the reference format in the page referenced. Thankyou both. Peter Neaum (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Mr Bean

I'm sceptical about the CC-ness of File:DIVE Mr Bean! - Funny Clips - Mr Bean Official.webm. It comes from a YouTube channel claiming to be "home to the live-action series of world famous British sitcom Mr Bean", and the source of the video appears to release it as CC. However, I'm not convinced that the channel has the authority to do that (i.e. it's not official); the closing title card is "© Tiger Aspect" and, similarly, the channel features clips from Bean, which is going to be a different copyright holder altogether and just makes me think the whole channel is a bit iffy... MIDI (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm convinced this is one of those cases where the license provided is broader than any company would rationally put out and thus the file should be deleted. But it seems that recently, COM:PCP is of little importance... -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I suspect a possible "license laundering" as there is no indication that the original episodes are freely-licensed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh no, not again :D. The X account (mrbean) links to https://mrbean.com. This web page links to https://www.youtube.com/user/MrBean as YouTube channel. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:DIVE Mr Bean! - Funny Clips - Mr Bean Official.webm‎. Yann (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/11#Upload of licensed content in YouTube. The channel looks legitimate for reasons mentioned in the discussion. Some videos of the channel, e.g. uploaded 4 years ago, are under the free license. This looks like the issue occasionally discussed in relation with such situations for other channels. Do we take the word of the channel and accept the free license or do we assume that we know better than they do themselves what they should do with their own licenses? It seems that if they didn't fix something after 4 years, it's probably because they indeed issued the free license or they agree to it or anyway it's their problem. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
...or perhaps they just never noticed there was a problem. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@MIDI, I would recommend that you join a related discussion regarding CC-licensed YouTube videos on the English Wikipedia at w:WP:VPP#Spongebob Squarepants is now freely licensed!. This discussion pertains to the validity of the CC-BY license on videos by corporate YouTube channels such as NickRewind and Disney Channel Israel. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

File:London King's Cross rainbow light tunnel - 2023-06-25.jpg

Does FoP-UK apply to File:London King's Cross rainbow light tunnel - 2023-06-25.jpg? Is it 2D art? Is it public art? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsure of copyright at File:K2inGjU 400x400.jpg

See File:K2inGjU 400x400.jpg. Unsure of its source or if it is copyrighted. Found while patrolling recent BLP edits on enwiki. Not too familiar with Wikimedia, so I'm posting here! Sorry if this is the wrong place! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 18:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Schrödinger's jellyfish: Thanks for the notification. This is the right place to come to if you are not sure if someone has the right to upload a file. I've marked the file for speedy deletion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Anything I should follow up with at en:wiki? I'll remove the image from the article accordingly and warn the editor about copyright. Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
@Schrödinger's jellyfish: No action is needed at En wiki in regards to the photo. If a Commons administrator deletes it, a bot will remove the file from the article automatically. The user has been warned on their Commons talk page, so they will get an alert on Wikipedia. If you want to give the user some guidance then that is up to you but I wouldn't issue a second warning for the same action. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

1951 photo of Pei May High School, Kolkata, India (copyright now expired?)

Hello, I'd appreciate if someone from the VRT/Village Pump help, can confirm that my uploaded photo of Pei May High School (Kolkata, India) taken in 1951 in my family collection, is good to use and share with right commons copyright? Its past 70 years already. Thank you very much!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PeiMayHighSchoolKolkata.jpg

(I do not know how to tag licences etc and if someone can let me know or do for me. Thanks!)

Setwikirec0 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Setwikirec0: I have no idea where "past 70 years" comes from. In India, copyright lasts 60 years past the death of the author (in this case the photographer). So unless this was taken by someone who died before 1963 (10 days from now it will be before 1964), this is still copyrighted. Plus I think that under U.S. law, because of the URAA restoration it will still be in copyright in the U.S. until January 1, 2047.
There may be a way around this: you say you found it in your "family collection". Are you the heir to the relevant intellectual property rights? If so, then you may grant a license using a template like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} or {{Cc-zero-heirs}}, depending what license you want to grant. Or, if you are not the heir, do you know who is? - Jmabel ! talk 05:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
They would need to be the heir of the photographer, not one of the pictured people, for there to be a chance there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
For such photos, the basis is the date of creation, PD-India-photo-1958. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you User:Jmabel, User:Clindberg and User:Asclepias. Here the date of creation is 1951. It is in my family collection and also have a member in the photo. Now, Asclepias, the date of the year 1951, India, should be good with common use / copyright? (India, being 1958 copyright expiry?) Appreciate your input! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2024 to all. Setwikirec0 (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Setwikirec0: Sounds like Asclepias had more specific knowledge than I did. Yes, you can apparently upload it, using {{PD-India-photo-1958}} as a license. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh, wait, no. I think he just left out the U.S. side of the equation. @Asclepias: that covers the copyright in India, but not (as far as I can see) the U.S. issues from the URAA restoration. I think for the U.S. we still need an assertion that a given individual is the heir and grants a license. Do you think I'm wrong about that? - Jmabel ! talk 20:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
You are correct that my comment was only about the Indian copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I edited to the Indian copyright {{PD-India-photo-1958}} of the photo taken in 1951. I hope I edited it correctly. Appreciate your input User:Asclepias
~~ Setwikirec0 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@Setwikirec0: You still haven't indicated who took the photo. Again, we would still need a license valid in the U.S. If you know who the photographer was, and you are heir to their intellectual property, say so and use {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}}, not {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}} {{Cc-by-4.0}}. If you don't know who the photographer was, you cannot possibly be in a position to issue a license, and we need to delete this and undelete on or after January 1, 2047. - Jmabel ! talk 21:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Helo Jmabel, I could not find the delete photo fumciton. If you need to delete, please do so for me. Thanks! Merry Christmas! Setwikirec0 (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Those licenses are both the same, please try again.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Setwikirec0: is that to say that you don't know who took the photo? Yes, it would need to be deleted then. I can do that, but please clarify that point so I know to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 23:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel, The goodness to grant permit to this family photo of 72 yrs ago may not be there by the photographer next of kin. So you may proceed to delete now. Looks like it will have to wait till 2047. Thank you. Setwikirec0 (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
So if this was posted in Wikipedia India commons, then the license is good to go, but not in America? Yet, wikipedia is virtual around the world wherever it is posted and license. The boundary line is confusing, but I kinda get it. Thanks Setwikirec0 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
@Setwikirec0: What is this "Wikipedia India commons" of which you wrote?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
@Setwikirec0: basically, the image is free to use in India. If you wanted to publish it in any way there, you are fine. But Commons is legally based in the U.S., and we have to follow U.S. copyright law (plus, we choose also to follow the law of the country of origin for the content), so we can't host it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok, Thanks Jmabel! Setwikirec0 (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Who is the author

I uploaded this file that follows some time ago. File:FiskMatchbook.jpg. I'd like some clarity on the correct source and author. Is it okay as is. For instance, is the author of this cover the manufacturer, retailer, or artist who drew the character (or even Fisk Tires). All of them are mentioned on the page. There is a WP article on the artist proving authorship of the character (since a couple or so images of the character in that article are signed). Thanks. JimPercy (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Since there is no copyright (and, given that the issue is lack of required notice, there never was), this really isn't a copyright issue or a legal issue of any sort, just a matter of how we choose to credit it. - Jmabel ! talk 01:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Right. There doesn't seem to be any strict conformity. So it's all secondary stuff compared to the major copyright issue. Thks. JimPercy (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The author would be the human artist who drew it. However, for a credit line, it helps to include the company they worked for, if applicable. In many countries, the copyright term is based on the human author's lifetime, regardless of who owns the copyright. However, the company may be the copyright owner, and that may be important if you are seeking alternate licensing (if it's still copyrighted somewhere). Credit lines often name anyone (or any legal entity) involved, even if not strictly related to the copyright itself. The information could be helpful in different circumstances. They can all be listed in the "author" field, I think, though the human author probably should come first. What you have is fine -- the other information is listed elsewhere, but it's there. I added the Creator template and author category. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Question: do other Berne Convention countries grant a copyright on "no notice" U.S. publications from this era? - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
It depends. Some countries apply the rule of shorter term, some have a treaty with the USA with specific conditions. Yann (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
If they do not use the rule of the shorter term, they would protect them to whatever term they have. And as Yann mentions, many western European countries have old (dating from the 1890s or early 1900s) one-off copyright treaties with the U.S., which were usually formulated as the U.S. will protect foreign works using U.S. terms, if foreign countries will protect U.S. works for their terms. Those can still be in effect, and override a general "rule of the shorter term". There was a case in Germany for exactly that; a U.S. work was protected for 70pma there despite it having expired in the U.S., and Germany using the rule of the shorter term. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Delete copyright photo

I uploaded a photo File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg, but I figured it out, it is copyrighted by BabaPhoto. Can you help me to remove the photo from page "Kalocsai Zsuzsa"? I tried everything, but I couldn't remove it. Thank you so much! Kalocsaizsuzsa (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Kalocsaizsuzsa.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 07:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@Kalocsaizsuzsa: Removing this from eo:Zsuzsa Kalocsai and hu:Zsuzsa Kalocsai would have to be done on those respective Wikipedias, although of course it will be removed automatically if it is deleted from Commons. But I don't understand: if the file is your own work, how can it be copyrighted by someone else? - Jmabel ! talk 07:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I see you started a deletion request, even if you didn't do it quite right (I'll fix that). Let's continue discussion there, rather than here. - Jmabel ! talk 07:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Corporate copyright after company dissolution

assuming english law.

the company publishing a newspaper owns its copyright, right?

then the company closed and the paper is terminated. after the company is deregistered, who owns the copyright now?

let's say if i want to buy all the copyright over, who should i make my bid to? RZuo (talk) 14:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo: I don't specifically know English law on this, but pretty much everywhere, when a corporation is dissolved, some entity acquires its intellectual property rights. If there are unpaid creditors, then sometimes a successor entity is set up for this purpose, owned by the creditors. If not, then it could go to any sort of entity: an individual, another company, a non-profit, a government agency. Occasionally, as with an intestate individual, the rights may be in limbo for an indefinite period of time. And, of course, as with a person's will, if things are contested then it can take a long time to disentangle who owns what. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
yes, i'm trying to find out who might still inherit the copyright from the dissolved company.
it's a bit like Vivian Maier. the curator of her films paid a distant relative to show that they have tried their best to buy over her copyright that could be inherited by someone. what i want to do something similar are newspapers that folded before 2000 in hong kong. RZuo (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't the copyrights have defaulted to the government of China since they don't really allow for private news companies? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: If the author obtained copyright in Hong Kong between 1950 and 1999 (from my memory due to the 50-year lease), UK law should rule (unless an agreement between the UK and China says otherwise).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@RZuo: One side note (don't know if this is relevant for you): While companies may own copyrights in the UK, the copyright terms there are still tied to the person of the author, which in the case of a newspaper might be a journalist or photographer. --Rosenzweig τ 13:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Agregar artículos 325 Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y Trabajadoras, y Artículo 2 Ley del Derechos del Autor a la Commons:Threshold of originality

Buenas y Feliz Navidad a los Administradores de Wikimedia, por favor necesito que un administrador agrega los artículo 325 de la Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras. Además del artículo 2 de la Ley sobre Derechos de Autor, a la Commons:Threshold of originality porque esos artículos en Venezuela aplica a los Logos, Banderas y Escudos (emblemas) en Venezuela está en el "Dominio Público" ese mapa Venezuela en el Commons:Threshold of originality debería estar en Verde (OK). (Nota:En el artículo 325 dice:Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras en el sector público

La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora.Esta parte invención significa que puedes crear Logos, banderas y escudos con tu propia creatividad)

AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not a matter of threshold of originality. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
@Asclepias:Buenas, una pregunta que significa "Invención" en el Articulo 325?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@AbchyZa22: Hi, As mentioned in the other discussion on that topic at Commons:Help desk#Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coat of arms of Caracas (2022).png, the interpretation and possible application of art. 325 of the LOTT would be a question for specialized jurists in Venezuelan law. Without references to decisions or doctrine, discussions on Commons are unlikely to provide an answer. You can try to find if there were any decisions by courts in Venezuela. A quick search online shows a few doctrinal commentaries by jurists. Two commentaries argue that art. 325 is inconstitutional [12] [13]. Another website mentions that the law was referred to the Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, for a decision on constitutionality. You can try to find what happened with that. Given the context and the title of art. 325, "Invenciones, innovaciones y mejoras" (inventions, innovations and ameliorations), it seems plausible that the main intention or goal of art. 325 was related to industrial innovations and research and development. For example, industrial innovations in the petroleum industriy developed from research in State enterprises or funded by public entities could be immediately and freely used by companies in the private sector. Does the scope of art. 325 extend also to other areas, such as artistic works? Maybe yes or maybe no. Different articles use different words. The particular title of art. 325 seems to hint to a possibly narrower scope than other words. Commons cannot give you the answer. Look for legal decisions and commentaries. For the artwork of Caracas, on the help desk it was suggested to contact personally the artist. There is a contact form on his website. He will not give a legal analysis of art. 325, of course, but at least he can tell if he considers that art. 325 applies to his artwork. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

GNOME 3 gallery

I may contribute on this arcticle's gallery which is now empty

Can I upload this picture?

GNOME 3.4 on Fedora 17

Ustanovka shindows (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This picture is in gallery now. I uploaded it in GNOME 3 article. Ustanovka shindows (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Art of Vladimir Zarubin

The holiday cards in Category:Art of Vladimir Zarubin are all marked as {{PD-RU-exempt}}. Are these somehow official works? They are clearly not news reports, and since the author is known, they cannot be anonymous folk art. - Jmabel ! talk 05:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a peculiar Russian (or, specifically, Soviet, and thus, for pre-1991 — or, to be more precise, pre-dissolution of the Soviet Union, which happened at the end of 1991 — works) copyright law exemption for postal cards: since the stamp is printed on the card as a part of manufacturing process, rather than plastered onto the card postfactum, the entire card is considered знак почтовой оплаты ("the means to pay for postal services"), and, given that they were issued by Ministry of Communications of the USSR, an official government agency, by Soviet Russia's law, which makes documents (including "means of payment", which is primarily aimed at banknotes, but that category ends up covering postal stamps as well) public domain. See Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Russia#Stamps. While the scans were intitially deleted as a result of User:PlanespotterA320 (now, thankfully, banned) creative interpretaton of the law, recently it was reversed, so now due to this peculiar exemption, we have these (and only these!) works of his in public domain. Vladimir himself, sadly, died in powerty in 1996 of stroke (caused by the privatized printing company refusing to pay him a significant sum of money for his work). The total circulation of postcards bearing his art exceeds 1.5 billion units. -- Wesha (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn photo

Our website used File:A solzhenitsin.JPG fully attributed and linked to the creative commons license. PicRights International Inc is demanding we remove the image from our site and pay them damages, claiming the image is copyrighted by Reuters for exclusive use. We have refused to remove the image or to pay PicRights because the photographer has made the image available under CC-BY-SA 4.0 on wikimedia. I could not find talk at the image page. PicRights says we are infringing on https://pictures.reuters.com/CS.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ITEMID=PBEAHUNGTCC If this is not the right place to ask about this, could someone direct me to the url of the appropriate page. Has anyone dealt with similar issues? Before hiring a copyright lawyer are there other steps to take? PastPicker4tA (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@PastPicker4tA: Hi, and welcome. Please use internal links like File:A solzhenitsin.JPG or that for source File:Evstafiev-solzhenitsyn.jpg (both monochrome). Pinging @Evstafiev (Mikhail Aleksandrovich Evstafiev) as uploader 08:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC). It appears Reuters had the photo in color and much larger June 01, 1994 (13 years earlier), but the uploader claims to have taken it that day. Perhaps Reuters stole the rights from him or gave insufficient info to PicRights.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. PastPicker4tA (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Just to confirm that the photo was in fact taken by myself, however I was not the only photographer present at that moment. Mikhail Evstafiev Evstafiev (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@Evstafiev: Thank you. Did you take it in color and license it to Reuters?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I was shooting Fuji400 colour negative film that day. Reuters have a similar but not identical photo; the one from my archive was originally scanned in colour. When I began writing, editing and contributing to Wikipedia, I converted my file to b/w and uploaded to Wikimedia. Hope this resolves the matter. Evstafiev (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Or, more precisely, is the claim of PicRights International Inc. believable, to the effect that you might have ceded to Reuters the copyright and the *exclusive* right to use all versions of this photograph? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
No, the claim is not correct. Evstafiev (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what to say here. It sure appears as though it was uploaded and licensed by the photographer, long ago. Do note that is is NOT licensed CC-BY-SA-4.0, but rather multi-licensed CC-BY-SA-2.5-Generic, CC-BY-SA-3.0-Unported, and GFDL 1.2+. You can pick any of those licenses, but strictly speaking it is not licensed with the 4.0 version. Reuters has a color version; ours is black and white. The crops are different; the Reuters image has more content on the left side, while ours has more on the right (meaning it was not copied from that Reuters image). Reuters does not name the photographer, but just "Stringer" which may just be a term for a contract photographer. Presumably the photographer at one time contracted with Reuters. They may be mistaken on the "exclusive rights" aspect, in that they have rights to use it but the photographer may maintain rights to license it elsewhere, but only asking the photographer directly may resolve that. If the photographer transferred exclusive rights to Reuters per the contract, it's possible he did not have rights to license it here, and forgot that. Or Reuters simply assumes it has exclusive rights on all its images and assumes people copy from their site, and only gave superficial info to PicRights. I'm sure that is true most of the time, but not sure what realistic options PicRights will give you. Perhaps asking them for details about the contract with Mr. Evstafiev. The real answer probably lies in the contract between the photographer and Reuters, which none of us here would know. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that the Wikimedia image has more content on the right. I had noticed the crop on the left, but not the extension on the right. Very helpful information. PastPicker4tA (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg: en:Stringer (journalism). - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The black and white version is also displayed on his official website [14] and, per his copyright notice there, he is the owner of the copyright on it ("All material and images on this website, unless otherwise stated, Copyright Mikhail Evstafiev"). That is consistent with the information on Wikimedia. It is not consistent with the claim of PicRights. There is an address where he could be contacted to clarify the matter. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this helpful information. PastPicker4tA (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
So for some fun I took the cited images and superimposed them. They line up almost perfectly, but wikipedia image indeed has more content on the right (green box) and Reuters image, on the left (red box), and thus, Wikipedia did NOT lift the image off Reurters. That makes me suspect that Evstafiev WAS the stringer. -- Wesha (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@Evstafiev last edited here 5 years, 7 months, 12 days, 1 hour and 47 minutes ago = 2052 days (Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 10:50:33 UTC) and on any WMF project on enwiki 4 years, 2 months, 27 days and 35 minutes ago = 1549 days (Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 12:04:33 UTC). Thank you all.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
But, nonetheless, he posted ^^^^farther up on this thread about four hours after Jeff G.'s remark here, so he is now engaged on this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Taking pictures at a film shoot

Non hypothetical filmset at Domshof Bremen

Hypothetical situation. Suppose I come across a film shoot and decide to take pictures. Would such pictures be allowed on Commons, or would the arrangement of actors and props be copyrightable? Ixfd64 (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

What country would this hypothetical situation take place in? Some countries have rules around consent of participants (non-copyright restriction) that would prevent upload to Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Let's say this is in the United States. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@Ixfd64: You're fine. In the U.S., doing things in a public place is implicit consent to be photographed, limited only by personality rights. - Jmabel ! talk 20:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
It depends. If the shoot takes place in an area that is cordoned off, even if that area would at other times be a public place, it is now private. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, you can't walk into the cordoned-off space of course, but you can still shoot from outside. Obviously, for the duration, the cordoned-off space doesn't count as public, but this is just like being able to stand on a public sidewalk to photograph a house. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
No copyright issue IMO. There is no artistic, literary, or audio-visual work involved (I assume copyrighted elements may pass de minimis thing). Non-copyright restrictions like privacy, security, and house rules are not grounds for deletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 22:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The 'arrangement of actors and props' is an artistic work and is therefore copyrighted. In some cases de minimis may apply. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Logo Niagara.svg

Hello. I think this file can't be an "own work" because it's the logo of the french band "Niagara". Maybe it can stay here because it doesn't meet the threshold of originality ? If it's not right, it should be deleted ? Thank you. 78.119.11.155 11:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, {{PD-textlogo}}. I changed the license. Yann (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Should there be a PD-old-maybe-published template?

I saw that this file has only {{PD-US}}, but we know the death date of Orville Wright, so I figured I could put a more specific tag on it. But I wasn't sure whether to use {{PD-old-auto-expired}} or {{PD-old-auto-unpublished}}, as I tend to assume that merely transmitting a telegram does not qualify as "publication" under US law. Both templates indicate that the work is PD in the US (when given deathyear=1948), and logically one of them must apply (either it was published before 2003, or it was not). What template is appropriate for situations like this, where we don't know exactly which combination of formalities causes the work to be PD, but we can be reasonably sure that it is PD? I don't want to leave it with just {{PD-US}}, because we know the death year and can give more specific advice as to its non-US copyright status. NYKevin (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Pre-1978 was murky in terms of what publication meant but you can use whenever the contents of the telegram became revealed to the public as a publication date. Abzeronow (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The date of death has almost no bearing on old U.S. works and does not help in determining which more specific tag to use. The deathyear argument helps in other countries, certainly. We would need to know the date of publication, with publication itself being often a murky topic. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
However, I do see the text published here, a Kansas State College bulletin, with reference to it being published in the December 16, 1928 New York Times. So it's at least that old. In three days, it would definitely be PD-US-expired. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
That is good to know. Since I'm a NYT subscriber, I was able to verify that the Times did indeed publish the text of the telegram on that date (I looked up the article in TimesMachine: [15] is a subscriber-only direct link). As I would have expected, the telegram itself had no individual copyright notice, but I suppose it is possible it would be considered covered by the NYT's copyright, so waiting for January 1 and then tagging it -expired is probably the most pedantically correct way to do this. (I am extremely doubtful that the NYT actually has a valid claim to Orville Wright's telegram in the first place, but I'd rather not try to work out exactly how to write that in a PD template when we can just wait two days.) NYKevin (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed that it's very, very unlikely that the New York Times would have had rights to renew the telegram text (even though they did renew that day's newspaper in general), so it likely entered the public domain 28 years after that publication -- unless of course it was published elsewhere earlier, which it could have been. But yeah it all becomes moot in a couple days, since we have a solid date of publication, so easiest to just wait. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done, and added the publication information to the file's {{Information}} so that it does not get lost. NYKevin (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Double checking validity of Andy Warhol image content

I found File:Warhol Benincasa.jpg on commons and have extracted a thumbnail for use on WP. This file claims to be own work. Is this a validly licensed image?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Exclusive licence/license on Wikimedia Commons contributions

(reposted from en:Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Exclusive_licence/license_on_Wikimedia_Commons_contributions as suggested by ColinFine)

If someone uploads an image to Wikimedia Commons with a non-CC0 licence, and then submits it in a journal article which involves granting the publisher exclusive use, what is the status of the image for the uploader, as well as for everyone else? Thanks, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 12:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Cmglee: AIUI, the status would depend on the contract between author and publisher, irrevocable vs. exclusive.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
"with a non-CC0 licence" this is too unspecific, but for this i'm going to assume CC-by-SA 4.0 was used. If this image was uploaded to Commons with that license, then the CC license is irrevocable. Anyone can download and reuse the image according to the licensing rights, up until the copyright of the image expires (This being sort of the whole point of what we do here). If the copyright owner then submits that exact same image to a paper and this paper requires that the owner/author gives them an EXCLUSIVE right to the copyrights and the publishing rights of the article and all of its contents, then this is technically not possible. There is already a pre-existing conflicting contract (license) that gives non-exclusive rights to everyone else. Even transfer of the copyright does not invalidate the previously granted licenses. So effectively the journal cannot receive an exclusive publishing right from the author, and possibly if the author engages in a contract with them without notifying the other party of this previous contract, the submitter is creating a breach of contract situation between themselves and the journal. There are however many nuances to this and without a specific journal and knowing the specific publication contract (because most journals these days have multiple contract types) it is difficult to ascertain the impact for copyright owner and journal. But for Commons this all doesn't matter. The Creative Commons license is irrevocable. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the detailed answer. I'll have to carefully check the contract then. Would you know of any precedence of authors getting in trouble for breaching such a contact? Thanks, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 15:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Assuming this is about yourself: I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that if you first offer an irrevocable free license and then receive some sort of compensation from a second party for an "exclusive" license for the same material, the party that paid (or provided some other quid pro quo) for the "exclusive" license would have legal recourse, because you agreed to provide them something you were not in a legal position to provide. (Harder to guess what happens if there is no quid pro quo.) If the contract in question is not yet signed, I would certainly think you would want to add a clause indicating explicitly that this particular image is already licensed under such-and-such license. They don't necessarily need to mention that license when they go to print (because they have a separate license from you), but they presumably can't sue any third party for using a license that you have also granted. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
If an author writes an article that quotes a text that is in the public domain and publishes the article with a publisher who demands exclusive rights, I expect that the legal department of the publisher will agree that this does not imply that the author from then on can no longer quote this text – unlike everyone else, who is not a party to the contract and can use it freely. I also suppose that the same holds for a CC-BY-SA licence, regardless of who the original creator was. (The author might include material created and licensed by someone else.) If there is any doubt, I'd ask written confirmation of this analysis from the publisher. I also have signed various contracts with a rider added at my behest making an exception to a clause that in the specific context was not reasonable.  --Lambiam 00:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, @Jmabel: and @Lambiam: That seems like sounds advice. You're right that everyone else's rights are not affected no matter what is in the contract as they did not sign it – I should've realised that. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 01:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I would summarize the situation like this: having issued a CC-BY-SA licence, in effect the only special or exclusive IP rights an author has left to grant are to waive the BY and/or SA conditions. I can imagine circumstances in which either might be of value, but I don’t know how often they occur IRL, if at all, to the extent that anyone would actually purchase such a right. Some form of BY is essential in all reputable academic work anyway, so here (if my inference from “journal” is correct), only the SA requirement would be on the block. For example it would allow licensees to assert ARR on DW of their making. (Similar considerations would apply to the NC & ND conditions, but we don’t go there.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
In my experience, when paying for a separate license for materials that are already free-licensed, most publishers understand they cannot get exclusivity (though that sounds like it might not be the case here) but they are willing to pay for a strong assurance that you really own the relevant rights, and to that end they typically want your real name, not an account name. Also, they want to be freed from any obligation to mention a specific license when they publish.
BTW, I've also had people pay for a 6- or 12-month exclusive on a set of photos, with me free to free-license them once that time is up, or (in at least one case I can recall) free to free-license whatever they didn't publish in their magazine. It's interesting how much business models seem to differ on this sort of thing. - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your views and experiences, @Odysseus1479: and @Jmabel: good to know. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 13:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
From what I understand, if you "grant a publisher a right to exclusive use", that does not automatically null and void any of your previous obligations, i.e. from now onwards you promise to not sell or otherwise transfer your right to that image to somebody else. But CC is irrevocable, so if the publisher failed to see this image is under CC alredy, it is THEIR fault, CC license is still valid. -- Wesha (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Wesha. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 14:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Rea Irvin image

In a little over 3.5 days, w:Eustace Tilley as drawn by w:Rea Irvin will appear in the DYK section of the English Wikipedia w:Main page. I just stumbled upon something with an image of Irvin and was wondering if there is any chance that we can have a proper image in the Irvin infobox.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

His fantaisist self-portrait was published in 1943 by M.H. de Young Memorial Museum in the book Meet the artist, which has a copyright notice, but there doesn't seem to be an indication of a copyright renewal for that book title in the stanford base nor in the loc base, but other users could know better search options. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Perception-based map cartoons

Can I request some assistance in properly adding some Perception-based map cartoons to commons. this article presents two w:John T. McCutcheon cartoons (from 1908 and 1922) that may be inspirations for w:View of the World from 9th Avenue. Can we add them to commons so I can include them in that article?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

When were those cartoons published? Ruslik (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
McCutcheon cartoons were always page 1 on Chicago Tribune and 1908 and 1922 seem believable dates. Abzeronow (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: what "assistance" would you need? Is there some reason you cannot simply upload them? - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Do I need the exacted MMDDYYYY? Can anyone help me with those?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll look tomorrow for the 1922 cartoon but you can upload in the meantime if you want, I do have a Newspapers.com subscription and the Chicago Tribune is on my followed list (since I do upload pre-1928 stuff from there). Abzeronow (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
What licenses would I put on the upload? If it is routine and the dates are hard to find, I am in the good graces with the w:Chicago Public Library here in town. So, if everything is Kosher, I might be able to get help tracking down dates. I am here to figure out how to make this a kosher process. I would also appreciate help with the dates, but could get help from the CPL.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Anything published in the U.S. before 1928 (2 days from now it will be before 1929) is in the public domain. {{PD-US-expired}}. No "license" is involved for something in the public domain, though some people speak of this loosely as a "license tag". Year is sufficient, though more precision is always welcome. - Jmabel ! talk 21:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Resolved

Is this work copyrighted?

The Flickr work in question

I found a work on Flickr that says it is public domain but given it’s from a television programme I'm unsure of the validity of this claim. I've placed a link to the Flickr file of the image above. Help on whether or not it is or is not copyrighted and whether or not it would be acceptable to upload to Wikimedia Commons under the rules of the Commons would be very helpful and much appreciated. Helper201 (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The Flickr account has the description, "Big Brother Junkie, sharing Big Brother Photos from series around the world." The image EXIF data says "Copyright - Channel 5 Broadcasting 2014" and "Embargoed - Celebrity Big Brother 2015." The "embargoed" suggests this is a publicity image produced by Channel 5 (Q1062280) to promote their 2015 show and released for use by professional media (embargo is an instruction to media organisations not to use the image before the day Channel 5 wants to start its publicity campaign). The EXIF stating that Channel 5 retain copyright and the Flickr account appearing to be a fan-based account (or at least not claiming any relationship to Channel 5) suggests the public domain claim is false. I would advise against upload here without further evidence of its copyright status. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
This is what we call Flickr washing. When someone takes a copyrighted work and reuploads it under a falsely given open license. PascalHD (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Trying to adhere to license but it's impossible to "link" to a license on a print piece

Hi all-

I'm looking to use an image for a print piece that is tied to this licensing standard. However, one of the requirements is that a link to the license be included with the image when it's used. The issue is that I want to use the image for the print piece, so I can't provide a link in the common digital sense. I really don't want to clog up my layout with a long url. Can I just give appropriate credit like this, and the person who views the physical piece can look up the license if needed? "[Creator name/handle], License: CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons"

If anyone wants to dig into the license further, here's the Image. Clarejello (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You do need at least to provide a URL. You can set up a bitly link, which will be short. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
10-4. Thanks for the response! Clarejello (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel MW has its own Link-Shortener w.wiki. The image and the author (if the author of the image has a MW account) can be linked to with w.wiki. The license would need an external link shortener unless a single link to the file description page is deemed sufficient. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
True. That would be another way to do it. Still, Creative Commons is independent of WMF, and the user is entitled to link to the license without involving anything from WMF. - Jmabel ! talk 21:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
For images where the file name on Commons is too long, you can also use a shortened URL using the article number, such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/?curid=109924879 . It doesn't help much for this image because the filename is already short. You can find the article number in the first SCRIPT element of the HTML source code, marked with "wgArticleId". – b_jonas 18:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Additionally, on an image page under the Tools sidebar, there should be an option for "Get shortened URL", which generates a link like https://w.wiki/8jVC. So, there's various options! — Huntster (t @ c) 21:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Copyleft Trolls

Hi, See [16] for background. Cory Doctorow and Joshua Brustein accuse Larry Philpot of using Commons to sue people. Nenad Stojkovic is also mentioned by Doctorow. Nightshooter didn't upload anything since October 2013, but we should probably do something here. Images by Marco Verch were previously deleted for the very same reason. Yann (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: He just has 21 mediocre quality concert photos on Commons. I would strongly support nuking from orbit and banning his account for eternity. Plus maybe sending a note to his mother. He is exploiting Commons and hurting our mission and reputation. We should have no tolerance for such bad faith foolishness. Nosferattus (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: concur, though I don't have a space laser to spare. Care to start the DR, or would you rather that someone else does? - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@Yann and Jmabel: Done: Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Larry Philpot. Hope I did that correctly. Nosferattus (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Cory Doctorow makes an interesting suggestion about including a warning alongside old CC licences to make reusers aware of the potential danger. However, our templates like {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}} don't mention it. Should we add a warning to these templates along with a message encouraging copyright holders to re-licence their work under 4.0? The files will still remain here if the old licence is used but it gives reusers the opportunity to choose a safer file or make very sure they follow the terms precisely. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think about suggesting that. Yann (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
We've had this discussion before. I think it would be a good idea to first approach those users who are still active and ask them to change their uploads with pre-4.0 cc licences to 4.0 or cc-zero. The best way to do this could be with an offer: just agree on "this-to-be-created-page" and a bot will adapt all your uploads. It would also be good if Flickr would adapt its licences, as many of the pre-4.0 licences come from there. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
And not to forget @Doctorow has an account at Commons. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
If we do that, it's probably best to add the 4.0 license and not remove the earlier version -- if someone is using it under an earlier license for a derivative work, they may still need the original version to comply with those older terms. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
To my understanding, re-licensing under 4.0 could never undo the fact that they had previously irrevocably licensed it under the older version (say, 2.0). So, it would be dual-licensed, and could be used under the terms of either version 2.0 or 4.0, which may be more restrictive or more permissive in various ways. I agree it would be good to keep some explicit record of the old license in the file metadata, ideally in a less prominent way to show that 4.0 is preferred. 70.181.1.68 00:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
It can't undo it, but if it's not explicitly shown, there could be issues. Say someone used the work in a derivative which is CC-BY-SA-3.0 -- not sure you can do that with a 4.0 work; the derivative must be 4.0 or higher. If someone is validating the license and doesn't see the old versions, you could get into technical problems (which is what these copyright trolls can live on). Best to be explicit abut the dual-licensing and show all versions the author agreed to license under. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The Philpot images had already been discussed and processed years ago -- see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive_74#Vote:_overwriting_the_images_with_forced_attribution. The images had the correct attribution and a warning added to them. It sounds like another user who uploads here (Harald Krichel) is now using Pixsy, which I guess uses copyleft troll tactics. That user is apparently a member of VRT, and Wikimedia Deutschland. The question seems to be what to do with those uploads. They use the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license explicitly, even now, and only the 4.0 versions have the provision which helps fight these tactics. Not sure we have heard back from that user -- whether this is intentional on their part, or not being aware of how Pixsy does business. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@Clindberg: Obviously, we should do the same thing with Harald Krichel's <4.0 uploads.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
There are unfortunately thousands of them, so unless done by a bot (and then the images protected from being overwritten like Philpot's were), not sure how easy that approach will be. But it is one option, for sure. Unsure if this user has actually filed lawsuits like Philpot did, or just uses Pixsy, which I would presume (given the notice on the help desk) demands payment rather than the option of just fixing the attribution. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there some reason that no one wants Harald Krichel to participate in this discussion? Nosferattus (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The two linked accounts (@Seewolf and Harald Krichel: ) were pinged from the previous discussion on Help Desk and there is a link from that discussion to this one.[17] Seewolf was pinged on 14 December and the last global contribution was today. Harald Krichel was pinged on 20 December but the last global contribution was on 15 December. Seewolf should have received a notification for the previous discussion but has not replied. I am including Pings in my comment here to repeat the notification. Hopefully we will get a response. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have never sued anyone nor send them a bill for minor or even major violations of a cc-license. A major violation would be a "Photo: Wikipedia" and nothing else as attribution. But there are cases where the picture is used and a very different copyright holder is named on the page. In some of these cases on very commercial pages, I have sent them an invoice. If that is so heavily frowned upon, I will in the future abstain from that practice and license my pictures as cc by-sa 4. --Harald Krichel (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Usually, if someone has this wrong online, the first step should be to simply ask them to fix the attribution, and if they will do that, then the matter should be settled. Conversely, I for one don't think there is any problem with threatening to sue a someone (especially a commercial) entity that used your work in print without attributing you (or one that won't fix an online attribution when requested), especially if they are a repeat offender. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who thinks that is excessive on my part.
Harald, is your practice much different than that? - Jmabel ! talk 20:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this. The issue is not copyright holders holding accountable copyright violations, it's when the copyright holders jump straight into "sue!" mode without giving the violator a chance to correct the mistake. Those violations are often just a case of ignorance rather than maliciousness. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Basically yes, but I didn't first ask to fix the attribution, before I have sent them the invoice, hence the anonymous complaint. By switching the license to CC BY-SA 4.0 I obligate myself to do that. Harald Krichel (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/12&oldid=840986031"