Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/07

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

File:Entrance to Congleton Station © Jonathan Kington.jpg

I've just found File:Entrance to Congleton Station © Jonathan Kington.jpg on which the uploader, Eat Your Makeup (talk · contribs), has used the license tag {{cc-zero}}; but the source is geograph, and on that website the license is shown as CC BY-SA 2.0 - indeed, they helpfully provide the complete wikimarkup that should be used: <source lang=moin>== Summary ==

English: Entrance to Congleton Station
Source From
Author Jonathan Kington
(Reusing this file)
Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license 2.0
(required by the license)
Jonathan Kington / Entrance to Congleton Station / CC BY-SA 2.0
Jonathan Kington / Entrance to Congleton Station
Camera location53° 09′ 28.9″ N, 2° 11′ 35″ W  Heading=112° Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo
Object location53° 09′ 28.6″ N, 2° 11′ 31″ W  Heading=112° Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo
I sorted this out as part of my usual monitoring of new Geograph uploads. --bjh21 (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. bjh21 (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Official Photos

Can photos of government officials in Slovakia be considered free? I'm specifically asking about the image here of the current Slovak PM. Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ezhao02: Most likely not. {{PD-SlovakGov}} only provides for a limited governmental public domain (i.e. government edicts, plus municipal symbols). The website also stated © 2020 Government Office of the Slovak Republic, so most likely copyrighted as all rights reserved.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Ezhao02 (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can this copyvio case be closed?

I believe that my request at [1] can be closed as "delete". The discussion has been open for a week, and this is a clear case of copyright violation. It would be nice if someone could take care of it, thanks! Renerpho (talk) 05:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Renerpho: I haven't seen the recent numbers, but there is usually a backlog of deletion requests weeks or months long. Unless there is a pressing need for a file to be deleted sooner, it's best to just wait until an admin gets to it. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What constitutes a pressing need? Does a copyrighted image licensed as "public domain" count? If not then I'm fine with waiting. Renerpho (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Renerpho: If, for example, there's a personal privacy concern with the image I think that would be pressing enough to deal with right away. You're right that having copyrighted images under the wrong license could be a serious problem, but that's probably one of the biggest reasons for deletion requests in general, so this request isn't more pressing than most others in that sense. At least there is a big red warning on the information page to warn prospective re-users of the issue in the meantime. – BMacZero (🗩) 21:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BMacZero: Understood, thank you! I think it can wait then. Renerpho (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 10:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is File:NEFFEX-Logo.png copyright-free because it does not meet the threshold of originality?

For me, it is an image of just three simple triangles, but I am not sure. What do you think?

--PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK for the US, I think. -- King of ♥ 13:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyrights with Restrictions

Some European institutions, like the Bibliotheque Nationale de France in Paris and Bodelian Library in Oxford as well as many others, have manuscript images from the medieval and renaissance period posted to their internet sites or into portals. Unlike the straight forward Copyright Free or Public Domain or Creative Commons License terms with no restrictions other than attribution, these institutions have posted limited reuse terms such as academic use only or no commercial use permitted. Are those restrictions limited to their respective country, such as France and England as in the two examples noted, or applicable across the globe? How do these terms of use come to play in the United States? How can an image or document in the public domain be restricted for reuse? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noncommercial licenses are not accepted on Commons, but we can accept those images if they fall under {{PD-art}} or {{PD-scan}}. -- King of ♥ 16:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I was wondering if we can upload/take screenshots from this video. However, this video was also uploaded in Madonna YT channel with copyright. As we can see on Vimeo, this video has a compatible license with Commons and it's supposed to be from a "verified account", a company also credited in Madonna's video description on YT. Thanks in advance, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say no. I don't see any good reason reason why the account owner would be the copyright holder for the video, so they can't release it under a free license. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

German beer logo made up of PD images combined

Hi all. en:File:Logo of possible Nazi beer.png is the logo of a German beer brand. The logo is a combination of two public domain images; File:Reichsadler Deutsches Reich (1935–1945).svg and File:German Cross.svg. I'm concerned that it may meet COM:TOO in Germany, whose case law isn't very clear, and am looking for a second opinion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say that it is below ToO as there is nothing creative in this combination. Ruslik (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, really just a lazy combination of two Nazi-era symbols that are just about on the right side of the law in Germany. The C of E (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image of Linda Voortman

I have uploaded from File:Robert Oosterbroek - Linda Voortman.jpg.
This website very clearly states, in Dutch, that the file may be used for publication. Which tag should be added to the file in order to protect it against deletion from wikimedia? Bob.v.R (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you link the exact source url so the licence statement can be checked? Ecritures (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good afternoon Ecritures and thank you for the reply. Here is the exact url, in Dutch. Best regards / vriendelijke groet, Bob.v.R (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good afternoon :) I think the licensing on the website is unclear (to say the least). They state - as you mentioned - that the photo can be used "for publication", while it is unclear if it can be used it under a free (CC)license for commercial use other than publication in a paper or digital work. The photographer of the picture is mentioned on the website but there is no indication whatsoever if (the city council) has the right to put any license on this picture or whether the photographer has the copyright. My advice: for the time being do not use this picture on Wikimedia Commons and first try to clarify the exact licence with the website and/or the copyright owner of the picture (= the maker of the picture). (The copyright owner - presumably the photographer - is the only one who can attach a licence to a creative work.)
The licence can be cleared either by a statement from the copyright owner to the (Dutch language) OTRS helpdesk or a licence statement + clarification in for example the photo description of the website. HTH, Ecritures (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Ecritures, your reply seems to suggest that the short and clear statement that is found in the supplied url can't be trusted. However, points to consider here are: the allowance to use the picture for publication is given by a part of the (local) Dutch government. Please note: this is the official website of the fourth city in The Netherlands. If a body likes that very clearly ("De foto’s op deze pagina mag u gebruiken voor publicatie.") allows publication, this is in my opinion a valid reference. Also we see that the allowance puts no restrictions or conditions on the publishing; however mentioning the photographer might suggest that the publisher (for example: wikipedia) is free to mention that Robert Oosterbroek is the photographer of this picture. Bob.v.R (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick question on a UK painting of Paul George Konody

So I have this link to a painting of esteemed art critic Paul George Konody, by the painter William Roberts (painter). The painting (according to the host website) was completed in 1920 and exhibited in 1923, which of course would make it public domain if these were in the United States, but it was created and exhibited in the UK. I have no indication of when it was first published in other countries. The author, Roberts, died in 1980. Am I correct in understanding that we are out of luck for using this painting until 2050? BD2412 T 15:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it is true. Ruslik (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crazy, but thanks. BD2412 T 17:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

US high school mascots/logos

I'm confused - the WikiProject Schools [2] says to include school logos under fair use when completing the infobox, but Wikipedia Commons says fair use isn't allowed.

Has the policy changed? I'm trying to be consistent with other schools, but I'm not allowed to use the logo? RickH86 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're mixing up the rules for Wikimedia Commons and for the English Wikipedia. Commons doesn't allow "fair use" under any circumstances. If you have something that would require a fair use justification, don't even bother trying to upload it to Commons; you need to upload it to the English Wikipedia and follow their strict rules for claiming an exception to the normal policy requiring all images to be freely licensed. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you RickH86 (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload photo of North Korean TV news presenter Ri Chun-hee?

I would like to upload a photo of Ri Chun-hee, a widely seen North Korean TV news presenter, to Commons. I believe a screen shot of a North Korean state TV broadcast showcasing Ms. Ri should qualify under Template:PD-KPGov, which says that "Documents controlled by Korean Nation; Current news reports; Public notifications; and Equivalent documents" are not eligible for copyright and are in the public domain. Am I right? Or, if not, can someone explain what policy point(s) I am misunderstanding?

(Not strictly relevant for Commons, but FWIW, I recently attempted to upload a photo of Ms. Ri on the English Wikipedia, claiming a fair use justification on the grounds that it was virtually inconceivable that a free photo of her—much less of her anchoring a TV broadcast and wearing one of her trademark pink dresses—could ever be obtained in North Korea, and also that she never travels (and is vanishingly unlikely to travel) outside of North Korea as far as anyone knows. This argument was rejected, however, on the grounds that as long as Ms. Ri is alive, it is "in principle" possible that a free image of her might somehow be obtained some day. This was before I became aware of Template:PD-KPGov, or else I would probably have started out trying to upload the picture here on Commons.)

Thanks for any input. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screenshot copyvio?

This file is tagged "screenshot" in the metadata. Sounds like a pretty obvious case of copyvio to me, but I am not quite certain about the legal status of the instances I found it via Google picture search. Can someone please check? Thanks. -- 22:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Someone has found the original image on an external site, and a deletion request has been created here.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright question

Hi, there is an image on flickt which is copyright protected (C). The photographer has agreed to use it on Wikipedia under the corresponding licence, but he does not want to change the rights o flickr to prevent other people from using it as well under this licence. I have all the correspondence, of course, but I wonder what I should do. Should I ask him to upload the image to Commons himself? Thans in advance. --Virum Mundi (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Legally, the Creative Commons license allows anyone to make a copy of it and post it anywhere on the Internet as long as they credit him, and revoking the license is not possible. So it seems that he doesn't really understand the implications of the license. -- King of ♥ 20:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts: I also talked to someone who wanted to do this, I believe the thinking is that it reduces the exposure of the more generous license (while technically anyone can use the image as licensed on Commons, they have to find it on Commons to know that). @Virum Mundi: If the photographer could upload the file himself that would be the easiest, otherwise you can find what you need at COM:OTRS. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BMacZero: If he uploads it himself, OTRS is still necessary as the file is previously published. There are several options here: 1) The Flickr user lists his email address publicly on his Flickr profile. Then that address becomes a verified email, and we can accept either a license release (if he lets a third party upload the image) or a confirmation of identity to link his accounts together (if he chooses to upload the image himself). 2) If he does not wish to list his email address publicly, then an administrator or license reviewer should communicate with him on Flickr and forward the conversation to OTRS. We normally do not accept forwarded permissions, but since admins/reviewers are already in such a position that we would trust their word even when there is no other evidence to go on (e.g. an external website which they reviewed goes down with no Internet Archive backup), it ought to be OK. -- King of ♥ 21:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. I will let the copyright owner know of the options, and let him decide. Best wishes. --Virum Mundi (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it would be better to let one of the administrators here in on the correspondence, which is in Spanish by the way. This way they can approve the image or get in touch directly with the owner. Sounds right? --Virum Mundi (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I would have done so myself but I don't have a Flickr account. -- King of ♥ 15:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, that's a shame. Ok, thanks! Virum Mundi (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canadian Copyright now extended to 70 years PMA with USMCA

Dear Admins EugeneZelenko, Lymantria AFBorchert, Christian Ferrer, etc, etc,

I suggest that {{PD-Canada}} be changed/amended in 3. the creator died more than 50 years ago TO 3."the creator died more than 70 years ago." to clear up any confusion.

The Canadian Government has ratified USMCA and an article on its copyright changes (see a paragraph on 'Copyright, digital trade, e-commerce') is mentioned HERE by scrolling through the article to 70 years pma.

Such a change was already mentioned in this 2018 article sadly. Canada's copyright act will be revised to 70 years pma if it hasn't been done yet.

Best from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changes to templates currently in use are tricky as we can not just change 50 to 70 in a template already used on thousands of pages as for some of them the author might not have died more than 70 years ago. If this change was to be applied retroactively than some Public Domain files might fall under copyright again. --Jarekt (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We would change it when they change their actual copyright law, so we see the specifics. The new treaty would obligate them to change the law, but not sure it would be required to change copyright law immediately. Most likely it will not be retroactive, so the suggested change would probably be misleading. If it's not retroactive, there would effectively be a 20-year freeze on expirations. There was also talk about making anything beyond 50pma require registration. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The change appears to be non-retroactive as far as I can tell, so when the time comes (in perhaps a year or two) we would need to change it to something like "the creator died before 1972" (fixed year) which will remain for the next 20 years. And if it requires registration, then we need to create some Canadian version of {{PD-US-1978-89}}. -- King of ♥ 21:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not unless the law changes. The adopted implementation act (S.C. 2020, c. 1) includes changes to the duration of the copyright for some particular things such as anonymous works, sound recordings, etc. See articles 23 to 34 of the act [4]. By the way, they are not retroactive, per article 34. The act does not include changes to the general duration of the copyright. Such a change would have to be made with another law. The trade agreement gives two years to Canada to implement a change. It does not deprive the Parliament of its authority over laws. But I suppose you can add, if you want, a note to the template to say that a change is expected. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: If this change of Canadian copyright law is not retroactive, then Commons can grandfather Canadian PD images uploaded before July 1, 2020 and avoid a large headache I think. That would be great. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We don't know the effective date of that change, either. It could be a while from now. It would have nothing to do with the upload date -- it means that works that expired by the old rules before January 1 of whatever year the new law takes effect would remain PD, and those can continue to be uploaded. I do see some tweaks to certain durations in the law linked above, but even those do not have an effective date set yet -- sounds like the government will announce that date at some point. It could be sometime next year, for all we know. The 70pma change does not appear to be part of that law, so that could be two years away still from being implemented. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, the particular changes that were adopted in the implementation act (changes about anonymous works, etc.) will come into force only when the government issues an order for the coming into force. It is not done yet. For now, the only order in council issued under the implementation act is to designate the minister responsible for the act. So, even the Commons template PD-Canada-anon should not be changed until an order is issued for the coming into force of the adopted change for anonymous works. For a possible change of the general duration of copyright, no change to the law is even adopted yet. As far as I can tell, for now no project of law is proposed about it [5]. (But compliments to the opposition member who proposed a private member bill to pass the government works to the public domain [6]. Not that it has much chance.) -- Asclepias (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Carl Lindberg & Asclepias for your points. The Canadian government will change the law to 70 years pma in future...but I guess it has not yet done so yet. I had thought image uploads could be grandfathered but I was wrong. The Americans pushed Canada to change their 50 year pma copyright law and Canada has no choice as the US is Canada's biggest trading partner. Such is life. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything currently uploaded will be fine, from the looks of it. There will probably be a freeze on expirations in the future though -- so things are "grandfathered" based on the date the author died or were published, not the date they were uploaded, that's all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation of CC0 comic

I'm planning to upload translations of Nicky Case's CC0 contact tracing comic (just the short versions for now) from this GitHub repo. All but two (three! Hindi's CC0 tag is also missing Sobsz (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)) of the translations are marked as CC0 as well, the outliers being the Polish and Portuguese (Portugal) versions. I've already contacted the creators of the former, but the latter was submitted by the repo's maintainer instead of the translator themself, which might make them harder to contact about the licensing. Is there some way I don't know of in which I can upload it to Commons regardless? If not, would it be okay to upload it to the respective Wikipedia instead? Sobsz (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The actual images appear to be tagged PD (pt pl), so it looks fine to me. -- King of ♥ 00:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's still attributed to Nicky Case though, so I'm guessing it was just left untouched out of respect and/or laziness. The Polish version's authors have made a pull request to tag it as CC0 though, so that's that taken care of! (it doesn't have to be merged into the repo for it to count, right?) Sobsz (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The full versions, including the pl and pt translations, are marked "public domain" in their panel 18, while the short versions are marked "CC0". There should be some way for the public to access reliable evidence to check if the translators did or did not issue a CC0 dedication on the texts of their short versions and of their full versions. If you think that the CC0 dedications on the pl and pt short versions (or on any short version) do not clearly apply to their texts, then I suppose they could just be marked public domain, as long as all the texts present in the short versions are also present in the full versions, which are public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There technically is a reliable way, since documents/public_engagement/cartoon/ contains a list of authors of the translations, as well as whether those translations have explicitly been tagged as CC0 (I fear the Polish translation's tag might not be merged based on lack of activity in the repo, but I `think` I can just provide a link to the pull request in the CC0 template as proof). Those dedications also contain the translators' (user)names - unlike the ones embedded in the images, which only list Nicky Case and (in case of the full versions) the people they've collaborated with. This is why I remain hesitant on whether I should upload them. Sobsz (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, that same file contains this sentence:

If possible, we would appreciate you also licensing your translations CC-0.

This implies that it's possible to not license a translation as CC0, further adding to my concern. Sobsz (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Internet Archive U.S. Federal works via contract

Category:FEDLINK items for license review

There have been several deletion requests raised for reports uploaded as part of the IA books project that were created under contract. Many examples have been added to the category above.

We could do with having some general principles agreed as to how to assess if any of these are not public domain, and whether all could be called public domain. Obviously the releases at the Internet Archive presume they are public domain federal works, however when a commercial supplier has written the report, even including their own logo, but not stating the work is public domain, nor including any copyright claim, this seems open for debate.

Many of the works are "old", and there may be a distinction in our confidence for works from, say, the 1960s versus works from the 1990s. Any feedback based on the examples or existing deletion requests would be helpful. Thanks! -- (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the link provided by Nemo bis above[7], works produced under a government contract don't fall under {{PD-USGov}}. However, all the files of this sort that I've looked at have lacked copyright notices, which means that they're likely to be covered either by {{PD-US-no-notice}} or by {{PD-US-1978-89}}. There are a couple of extra requirements for those templates, though. For {{PD-US-1978-89}} the work must not have been registered for copyright. This is simple to check (there's a link in the template) and I have yet to find one of these reports registered. The second requirement is that the work have been published in the relevant timeframe. Many reports have Government Printing office imprints near the back, sometimes with notes as to the number of copies to be printed and postage labels; obviously these ones were published by GPO. Others are less clear, but I'd be inclined to presume that anything deposited in a library was published somehow, bearing in mind that the work need not be sold to the public: being available for inspection and copying is enough. Of course, none of this applies to post-1989 works, which will be in copyright by default. --bjh21 (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Related are works that may be 'funded' or 'sponsered' research -
And prior to the creation of the category mentioned a number of DR's were filed individually, Category:IA_mirror_related_deletion_requests
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note - may be useful for checking which agencies listed in works may be Federal. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@: , @Bjh21: , @Nemo bis: , I think we need a new template for {{PD-US-Gov-Contract}} to explain what's going on. Anyone want to write this?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: I don't understand why we'd want one. What do you think it should say? --bjh21 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This work was originally produced under contract for, or with the funding/sponsorship of a Department or agency of the US Federal Government. The terms of {{tl|PD-US-Gov}} do not necessarily apply to works produced by non-governmental third parties, contractors, grantees or sponsored entities, but this work is considered to be under a 'free' license because : {{{reason|1}}} {{{license|2}}}

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Hmm. I don't think there's much benefit in having a template whose purpose is to explain why some other template might not apply. What's wrong with just using {{PD-US-no-notice}} or {{PD-US-1978-89}}? --bjh21 (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other purpose for another template is tracking, but you could have a 'blank' template to do that. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For tracking it's often better to use simple maintenance (hidden) categories. If categories are within a template, it makes it harder for other volunteers to understand what's going on, or how to recategorize when needed, possibly years in the future when everyone's forgotten what we did or why. -- (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploads by non-OTRS user with reference to OTRS ticket

Hi, a new user (Contributions) has uploaded a large amount of images from referencing a OTRS ticket added to some images previously uploaded from the same site, f.ex File:Grand Prix Final 2010 Adelina SOTNIKOVA FP 3.jpg. This OTRS ticket number was added this year in April. Could someone verify whether the new images uploaded are covered by this OTRS ticket? :{{Ping| (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TommyG: My glimpse into Ticket:2008012510003504 is OK, but someone will need to change every CC-BY-SA-3.0 with the specific {{}}, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK Crown Copyright images with free Flickr licenses

I have today uploaded a several images from the Flickr account[8] of the National Churches Trust (NCT), a UK heritage organisation. These are all licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr and I had assumed that the the NCT could be trusted to assign valid licenses. But the licenses may be wrong. Ownership of the Flickr account is confirmed by a link on the NCT homepage.[9] The files are:

COM:CROWN indicates that Crown copyright is not an acceptable free license. My view now is that the Flickr licenses for the first five files are usafe, because the NCT may not have authority to re-licence Crown copyright images. The other two images are probably ok, as "copyrighted" does not conflict with CC BY 2.0. Have I got this right? Verbcatcher (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your summary looks right. Crown works have a 50 year copyright but the government has a policy of using the Open Government license whenever reasonable to do so. So the fact that these have limited reuse under Crown rather than OGL shows that the government has decided to not make these public domain. These files need a deletion request.
Where the named photographer seems to have agreed the CC license, presumably because they were supporting/work for the NCT, this seems a reasonable rationale to accept the license as verified, regardless of what may persist in the EXIF data.
As these are very good photographs, you may wish to make the effort to write to the Flickrstream owner to check if they might be able to give a stronger statement about the Crown images, such as confirming officially that they can be released as OGL.
-- (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have raised a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/UK Crown Copyright files from National Churches Trust Flickr account. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1923 Yosemite Road Guide and PD-US-expired

Was File:Yosemite Road Guide, 1923 (16530984933).jpg published in 1923? Could {{PD-US-expired|country=US}} be added to the image's description page to provide increased clarity on the image's PD status? --Gazebo (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A road guide for a certain year would almost certainly have been published in that year or the year before. So it's definitely PD. -- King of ♥ 20:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photograph taken in the USA in 1893

The California Museum of Photography has an online exhibit which includes this photograph. This is from a display in the Columbian Exposition, which took place in Chicago in 1893, ending on the 30 October. The photographer is unknown. The credit line, "Keystone-Mast Collection, UCR/California Museum of Photography, University of California, Riverside" refers to the creators and hosts of the digital version of the image. The photographed item is a Gelatin silver contact print: not a scan from a newspaper or other publication. It's not clear whether or when this photo was published. Could someone advise me on whether I can treat this as free content, given the idiosyncrasies of copyright law in the US? Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general, all works created before 1900 are assumed to be {{PD-old-assumed}} unless specific information is found showing that it is still copyrighted. -- King of ♥ 17:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The name at the source is the Keystone View Company, which published stereographic images. If it was a print, then it was a copy made from the negative. I'd have to assume it was published at the time -- no indication to the contrary, and a named "publisher" as well. I would use {{PD-US-expired}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Heft Sächsische Staatstheater - Opernhaus Dresden Hoffmanns Erzählungen 002.jpg

Is File:Heft Sächsische Staatstheater - Opernhaus Dresden Hoffmanns Erzählungen 002.jpg concerning copyright ok? It shows just text and it is from 1921. What do you think?

Thanks, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PantheraLeo1359531: The file is in public domain and the copyright is ok because "it is not a “literary work” or other protected type in sense of the local copyright law. Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright.". --Red-back spider (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Determining Public Domain Status of 1922 Work

Hi, all,

I'm interested in scanning and uploading "Book of Hours", 1922, by Frans Masereel. It strikes me as a public domain piece, but, on the other hand, the Masereel Foundation ( claims sole copyright ownership over all of Masereel's materials.

Making this more difficult, the work does not list its place of publication, but it does state it is intended for sale "in America". Here are two screenshots of the relevant pages:

I know nobody is able to give legal advice, of course, on a forum, but I wanted to get someone else's opinion before I scan 167 pages of the most beautiful woodcuts imaginable.

Extra-Info: Book of Hours was also published as "Passionate Journey," 1919, but that was published in Europe, so the rules there may be different. Yes, I have an original copy, and yes, it was about $150 and several hours of snooping around. Thanks to whoever looks into this! Uprisingengineer (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The work is definitely public domain in the US, but unfortunately we require works to be public domain in both the US and the source country. Frans Masereel died in 1972 so it is copyrighted in Belgium until 2042. If there are any portions of your book which are unique to the US edition, then the source country for those portions would be the US, and we can accept them. -- King of ♥ 20:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for looking! It's always nice to have another pair of eyes on copyright issues. Uprisingengineer (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Digitised for Microsoft Corporation by the Internet Archive

Hey there, I imported a book scan from IA following Wikisource guidelines. I was pretty certain the work is in public domain as the author died in 1943, but then saw this message on the 4th page and wonder if I was too hasty in importing.

There's also a copyright 1918 notice on page 12 by w:D._Appleton_&_Company. Could use help clarifying the copyright status of this work/scan. Thanks to any responders, if this file needs to be deleted just let me know and I'll make the request. --SilentSpike (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilentSpike: The book is fine because those copyright claims aren't legally enforcable. If there's no creativity in doing the scanning (and there certainly doesn't look to be in this case), there's nothing to copyright. Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag is the relevant policy. Vahurzpu (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vahurzpu: Thank you for confirming my inexperienced understanding of the rules as written. --SilentSpike (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright questions about the Harvard University shield

The reason why is the Harvard University shield are always copyrighted?

  • The first recorded shield [10] of Harvard University was created on January 6, 1644, and would not have met the threshold of originality.
  • The shield was discovered by Harvard president Josiah Quincy in September 8, 1836.
  • This seal transformed over time but the current design of books and the shield was based on Pierre de Rose design in 1895.

Also, this shield are now considered in the public domain, but restrictions may be apply. The addition of "Harvard University" does not pass the threshold so does not constitute a derivative work. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you provide an example of a pre-1925 book with the Harvard shield? -- King of ♥ 13:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here, is the handwritten page [11] dated from 1644, which was the first design of Harvard University shield, and also this catalog depicts the shield of Harvard College from the title page [12] what I found on Internet Archive. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, such as this (1914) or this (1898). Most anything from the Harvard University Press from that era would have it in the front. In general, each graphic version of a seal can be copyrighted, since artists usually have a lot of freedom to draw individual elements. That said, a graphic version would have to show additional copyrightable expression over versions published before 1925 (or even published without notice before 1964), and I'm not sure that the current versions do. They seem pretty similar. What is the question though? We have Category:Harvard University logos. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but some logos with text (including Harvard shield made in 1644) would never be copyrightable. In fact, these Harvard University and College shield what is now public domain which was made in the Thirteen Colonies, before the independence in July 4, 1776, and the first U.S. copyright law was passed in 1790. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're referring to w:File:Harvard shield wreath.svg: Can you show evidence that the wreath is public domain? -- King of ♥ 22:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From 1937–onwards, this emblem of the Harvard University were protected by copyright, then it was first used by the Harvard Law School. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking for here; as far as I can tell, the free logos are on Commons and the non-free logo is on Wikipedia, as it should be. -- King of ♥ 19:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When la Rose died in 1940, some of heraldic works for the Harvard University are likely not public domain, which lasted for 95 years after creation. By conclusion with the university shield (1643) and college shield (1843) both were public domain. The source is right here. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still don't know what you're trying to say. Is there a specific file on Commons you think should be deleted, or a specific file which is not on Commons you think should be on Commons? -- King of ♥ 03:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using photographs from wikimeda common

I am writing a book about parliament which include photographs from this site. What is the procedure for re-using these photographs for a publication that will be sold for commercial usage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keungjt (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Keungjt: Each photo has its own description page, where the requirements for its reuse are described. If you need help about specific photos, you can ask, here or at the Help desk, with links to their filenames. You can also see Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Shadow the Hedgehog" symbol - Is it simple enough to not meet threshold of originality or no?

This is the symbol I'm talking about, the symbol seen on the logo of the video game Shadow the Hedgehog. It is meant to be the symbol of Black Arms, but is often associated with Shadow- Okay, that's off-topic. I'm wondering: The symbol is composed of a "swirl" with curved "spikes" coming out of it. Would that be simple enough to not be copyrighted or not? PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PrincessPandaWiki: I believe it is above the threshold with respect to the placement and arrangement of the spikes. The texture also makes it not OK. (Also, if you are who I think you are, hello there!) -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is JSON License Accepted by Commons?

I have a comment that a file matches the JSON license and this file is not free. On Commons, we are discussing whether this file matches the JSON license or whether the JSON license is allowed on Commons. Please join us.--Araisyohei (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can i upload this?

I want to upload this fish photo, which I've seen labeled as "Frenemies", to the Commons. It is an NPS publication, but Im not sure if the license covers this photo because it says it was uploaded "courtesy of J. Armstrong". The article is here. Can you help? Thanks, Soap (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Looking into this. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Soap: Probably not yet. The photo does not appear to be in the public domain, because the photographer did not work for the U.S. Federal Government. Specifically, per metadata, the photographer is Jonny Armstrong, who (based on google comparing their photos) is the same person as Jonathan B. Armstrong, who works for a university, not NPS (although it's not clear if these photos were taken as part of his work). I see no evidence that he released the photo under a free license anywhere. That said, especially if you have a use for the image in mind, it probably wouldn't hurt to ask him: his flickr is here. Cheers, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay thank you. I would not have found that myself ... and now I know that I've seen some of his other fish pics elsewhere as well. I wasnt able to find a way to contact him on flickr or his website, but I may have found him on Instagram. I would not expect him to license the picture for free use now that I look at his other work ... but I guess I could ask. The pic I posted is part of a series, which includes this other one that I suspect was taken just a few seconds earlier. Soap (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I think I will go upload this one. Its yet another picture in the same series as the other two, but this one clearly says "public domain". It may be that Armstrong released this somewhat smaller resolution picture as public domain, but not the other two. As much as I would love to use the "Frenemies" pic, this one is cute too. I plan to use this picture to illustrate both sockeye salmon (the red fish that dominate the picture) and arctic char (the sad looking gray fish trapped near the rock). Soap (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jay Fleming photo

I hadnt thought to look at metadata until you mentioned it. Does this mean that this other fish picture I uploaded recently, which is also an NPS work, is a copyright violation ? It says it's copyrighted in the metadata, which I had no way of knowing before I uploaded it, since it did not say so on the NPS page. Note the author is credited as NPS/Jay Fleming. Thanks, Soap (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This one says "NPS/xxx" in the credit line as opposed to "Courtesy of xxx", so it's more likely he was working for them. There seem to exist photos by Jay Fleming which are clearly labeled PD by the NPS, strengthening the hypothesis. -- King of ♥ 19:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To elaborate: "NPS photo" or "NPS/xxx" implies the associated photo "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties", and thus that the photos are in the public domain. See 17 U.S.C. § 101, 17 U.S.C. § 105(a). However, "Courtesy of xxx" may mean that the work was not "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties", and thus may not be in the public domain. Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thank you both. I will assume the picture is okay then, and that the explicit license overrides the metadata declaration. Soap (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Soap: If I may digress for a second, I must say it's a pleasure to look at photographs by Jay Fleming. About your question, I think more caution is necessary in a case like this. I agree that "NPS/Name" can usually, in the absence of anything suggesting otherwise, be interpreted as meaning implicitely that "Name" is a regular employee, but it is not explicit and, in the present case, it is even explicitly contradicted by the metadata. There can be many different possible contractual arrangements of cooperation between a photographer and an organization. When there is such a clear statement of copyright by a professional photographer, I think it can't be simply ignored and Commons should really check directly with the photographer himself to clarify the matter before risking a copyright violation. The photographer has a contact form on his website and has a presence on social media, so it should be possible to easily contact him. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope we can keep the picture. I sent him a message, and I hope to hear back soon. But I still want to know: what should we do if he never replies? It may be that he has too many messages to read and reply to every one. Soap (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No reply after five days. Perhaps I should have had him email an official URL on Commons (OTRS maybe?) instead of just using my personal email, but I suspect he's just busy and may not even have seen the request. What should we do if he just never answers my question? Soap (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you got comments from three users in this thread. Mdaniels5757 seems confident that the file is ok. King of Hearts is more cautious but seems to lean towards ok. And I would not take the risk to upload it myself without confirmation, but I would not request deletion if someone uploads it. So, in terms of comments, it's kind of 2 to 1. You decide from there. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thank you. I wasnt sure of the procedure and wasnt sure our opinions mattered at all. Personally I suspect the metadata may have just been overlooked ... but I will still monitor my email for replies. In the meantime, my use of it on Wikipedia shows that the picture is serving its intended purpose. Thank you, Soap (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's worth discussing formally at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brook trout in water.jpg.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Der Ewige Jude poster

There is something a problem with Der Ewige Jude poster, perhaps which was created by unidentified artist, then now public domain in Germany within 70 years of creation, by tagging {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you think that the artists is unidentified? Ruslik (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no signature, but it is hidden. The artist regarding The Eternal Jew poster was created by Hans Schweitzer (d. 1980), but it is still copyrighted until 2051. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If page allows a free download, is it public domain?

I tried using this picture of Jeff Vahle on a new article, I do not see any copyright information, but on the page it lets you download the image, for free. Does this mean it is public domain? If not, then he has an Instagram account, the pictures are not credited, but are they public domain?

I did a search and didn't find the clarification I needed. Guidance is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmandaRB (talk • contribs) 04:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC) AmandaRB (talk)Reply[reply]

No. "Public domain" is a condition where there are no copyright restrictions at all, usually because copyright has expired, or (in rarer cases) when a copyright owner has quite explicitly released a work to the public domain (i.e. abandoned their rights permanently). A "free" work is one where copyright still exists, but has (again, very explicitly) been licensed very liberally, such that the conditions at are met, where most usages are allowed with few restrictions. A much more common case is Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Press photos, where photos are released for editorial use by journalists and that sort of thing, but likely does not give permission to significantly modify them, or use them commercially, or things like that. While many uses of such works are legally OK and fall under the intended usage, including the most logical uses on Wikipedia even, they are still not considered "free" and are therefore not allowed by policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phillips Academy seal

If this seal you're reffering to w:File:Phillips Academy Andover Coat of Arms.svg from this page of the yearbook. [13] Which is very old and published in 1894, but now it is considered public domain. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the find, I've uploaded it: File:Phillips Academy Andover Coat of Arms.svg. You know, if you feel confident about a clear-cut case like this feel free to just upload it yourself. Make sure to cite the evidence on the file description page so everyone will be able to verify that it is PD. -- King of ♥ 23:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing Author


I want to use a photo from WikiCommons:

The author is identified only as "Touch of Light" yet there appears to be no user by that name. I can credit the photo by using the URL but I also wanted to contact the author. I'm confused.

Pete Levine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levinepw (talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Levinepw: Touch Of Light is the username of the uploader. That user has not created a userpage to describe themselves, but the user does exist nonetheless. You can verify this in the File History section of the file. Since they don't seem to have provided different guidance anywhere, so that is probably the appropriate name to give credit to. – BMacZero (🗩) 22:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I pinged the user here, and you can also try their talk page User talk:Touch Of Light. – BMacZero (🗩) 22:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Demolished coal mine - licence?

I've transferred an image of Hapton Valley Colliery from Flickr that appears to be public domain. File:Hapton Valley (5477620332).jpg The FlickreviewR Bot wants me to specify why it is PD, but I can't find a suitable explanation. However someone once told me about Freedom of panorama, which would seem to apply in this case? I've not used it before. Is it appropriate, or am I going to have to steel myself for disapointment? Thanks Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trappedinburnley: Freedom of Panorama comes into play when a photographer takes a picture of something that might itself be copyrightable art, such as a statue, and allows us to not worry about the separate copyright of the statue (rules for when this is allowed vary by country). There's nothing like that in this picture - FlickreviewR simply wants to know why the photograph itself is public domain. This generally only occurs if it is very old (e.g. the photographer has been dead for some number of decades) or if it was created by an employee of certain governments. I don't think this image meets any of those criteria, but you can find more information here: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom.
If you think this image was created by the Flickr user you got it from, you could try contacting them and encouraging them to change the license to something clearer such as CC0, otherwise I'm afraid this image may not actually be free for use. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that. I was under the impression that FOP meant that images of public places could not be copyrighted, but I guess not. I doubt many Flickr users actually created the old images they post, if you are digitising stuff from fairly obscure, old paper sources, who is going to complain? However I might word it, I would probably effectively be asking the poster to breach the copyright in a manner more convenient to me. I think I will let this one go and try fair-use of a copyrighted image instead. Hopefully those guys won't complain about the public domain images available on Flickr lol. All the best. Trappedinburnley (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trappedinburnley: What FOP means is that images of public places are not subject to the copyright of the architect/sculptor/etc. So if someone took a picture of a modern sculpture in a museum (which is not covered by FOP), you would need to get the permission of both the sculptor and the photographer to be able to use the image legally. But if someone took a picture of a public sculpture in Germany (which is covered by FOP), you would only need to get the permission of the photographer. -- King of ♥ 16:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trappedinburnley: It's true that lots of images of this sort are probably forgotten by anyone who could enforce a copyright on them, but technically there is someone out there who has the right to do so. If the image was unknowingly re-used commercially by someone and the copyright holder decided to take action, it could make a big mess, so we play it safe. Fair use should serve your purposes fine here, though. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are marked "public domain" on Flickr -- but that may just be the default tag that uploader uses for his own photos. Per this image, the uploader said that "They're from a collection that has been passed to me to upload." So they are likely original photos, but the uploader is not the copyright owner, and we probably want better evidence of a public domain release. Placing works into the public domain requires an explicit act, and tagging it that way by an acquaintance (rather than putting that mark on it themselves) almost certainly does not qualify -- unless maybe they were well aware of what the license was going to be beforehand, but we have no evidence of that. Even if they were licensed more explicitly, like with CC-BY or something, we similarly would probably not be able to trust that either without further information being supplied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the info guys. I was aware of some of these photos two years ago as they are used in the NRMS source for the article. If they had a public domain license then, I would have been having this discussion at the time. I really would like to get some quality colliery images uploaded (I don't own any old ones myself) if I ever find the time to learn the complexities of licensing I will do something. For now a tiny fair-use copy of something will do. Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright on File:Smoorspoel choke coil.JPG

File:Smoorspoel choke coil.JPG Correct? Or to be deleted? See right under. --Stunteltje (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I guess you mean the tiny watermark in the lower right corner: "© 15 AJMW". Creative Commons BY licences do not waive any rights, so technically there is no contradiction. The file is still copyrighted but the copyright holder grants anyone else a free licence to use his work. And since this file comes in high resolution with original camera EXIF, I don't see why the watermark should have been put there by someone else than the uploader. De728631 (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
O.K. Thanks. No problem. Glad to hear, nice image and useful. --Stunteltje (talk) 05:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 廣九直通車 (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COVID-19 "advice for the public" section

I found this webpage from the w:World Health Organization, if does anyone upload these files to Commons about the COVID-10 infodemic? but if it's still unknown, what license do I choose? --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ZmeytheDragon16: Unfortunately, it appears the WHO chooses to use a CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO license for their work[14]. This license has a Non-Commercial restriction, which is not allowed on Commons. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible photo of a Robertshaw AutomatiCook Oven Controller device

I am considering uploading a photo that I took. The photo shows a Robertshaw AutomatiCook Oven Controller device. A low-resolution version of the photo is temporarily available for download here. The question I have is whether there would be any copyright issues with the depicted device if a high-resolution version of the photo was uploaded to Commons. The device is of a functional nature, but on the device are a number of what are probably numerical indications of temperature and also different settings (i.e., SLOW.) Thanks. --Gazebo (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There should be no copyright issue, I don't think this functional text passes the threshold of originality. Even if it did, it would be {{PD-US-no notice}} because of ads like this (1925). --rimshottalk 08:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rimshot: Thanks for the feedback. I have uploaded a high-resolution version of the photo as File:Robertshaw-AutomatiCook-device.jpg. From what I remember, the AutomatiCook device may have been attached to a kitchen stove that was on display at the Museum of American Heritage, so the description on the file information page should be accurate enough. --Gazebo (talk) 06:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Rheem logo.svg, a previous version, and vectorization

File:Rheem logo.svg was copied to Wikimedia Commons from the English Wikipedia. In looking at the file history, there is a somewhat different version of the logo that was uploaded on July 3, 2020 at 03:13 and which has some additional graphical details. Would that version of the logo be above the US threshold of originality? Another question is whether the vectorization in the SVG image may have its own copyright. (There was a discussion about the logo on en-wiki in which it was indicated that copyright on the vectorization was not an issue.) --Gazebo (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this revision of the logo below the US threshold of originality? --Gazebo (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This was uploaded as "own work", but I don't think it can be treated as such even if it's a diploma that the uploader earned as a result of graduating from university. I guess if it's a diploma issued by a national university in Greece, then it might be OK to re-license as {{PD-GreekGov}} per COM:GREECE#Exemptions from copyright, but that's something I'm not sure about. Is there another more suitable license this can be converted to or is it fine as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not a University diploma. It is a professional/vocational training and skills certtificate issued by a Government owned body (EOPEPP [15] ). Unfortunately EOPPEP is a Legal Entity of Private Law (i.e. Civil Law), so this file cannot be licensed under {{PD-GreekGov}}. SV1XV (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact it would be copyrightable even if it was a university diploma, since greek universities are national but not governmental, and it is not "a legislative, administrative or judicial text". And while there is almost no originality here, the logo of EOPPEP is copyrightable. --Geraki TLG 16:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this image below the UK TOO?

I have recently uploaded the front cover of a book that was published in the UK and Canada simultaneously. See this. I believe the image is certainly in the Canadian public domain because Wikimedia Commons states that "Canada's threshold of originality veers closer to that of the United States." See this for more information. It is certainly in the US public domain because the US has a high TOO. However, I want to confirm that the image is in the UK public domain because I understand that the UK has a very low TOO. I believe that it is in the UK public domain because the DR discussion for the HSBC logo here indicates that the HSBC logo is below the UK TOO. The image I uploaded consists of simple typefaces and simple arrows, which I believe makes it just as "original" as the HSBC logo. FunnyMath (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In cases of simultaneous publication, we generally accept it under the most permissive country it was first published under. -- King of ♥ 15:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does the quote on the cover count as a literary work that is eligible for protection? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concede that including the quote may be a copyright infringement. In Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, even an 11 word extract from a newspaper can be considered copyrighted if they "are the expression of the intellectual creation of the author." See [16]. Granted, this was a EU case, so it may or may not be applicable to Canada or the US. Canada states: "To be protected, a work must be something substantial. Sometimes an original and distinctive title can be protected." See [17]. I will move it to the English Wikipedia website under fair use if other people agree that the quote is copyrighted. FunnyMath (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should have clarified what I meant by "published in the UK and Canada simultaneously." I apologize for not doing so beforehand. The book was published in the UK on January 16, 2018 and was published in Canada on January 23, 2018. The author of the book is Canadian. Would the work being in the Canadian and US public domain still be sufficient? FunnyMath (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At some point in the past "within 30 days of first publication" was the rule for foreign works which were subsequently published in the US, but that's only for the US. I think for modern works, the issue is not so much a legal one as a moral one. It's below US TOO, so it is legal to host on Commons servers. Morally, it feels like a Canadian work since the author is Canadian. As long as this is the Canadian cover (or if both editions have the same cover), I think this should be fine. The quote seems like a bland platitude that doesn't take much originality to come up with. (Even if the quote were above TOO, there's no need to upload a low-res image to Wikipedia, since you can just upload the low-res image to Commons and the quote won't be legible anyways.) -- King of ♥ 01:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A low res version of the book cover was already uploaded on Wikipedia [18]. The quote is still legible. If the quote is above TOO, I would keep the high res version on Commons and just blur the quote, but I agree that the quote is not original enough to warrant blurring. Thank you for taking the time to help me with this. FunnyMath (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos from scientific meetings

Hi, I would like to use a photograph taken by the someone working for the scientific organization that ran a meeting in 2015. When I contacted the organization, they said it was fine for me to use it, but they have no experience with handling copyrights and do not even know who actually took the picture. I think this is an extremely common thing with scientific meetings in that no one really cares about copyright and copyright protection. How can I use this picture?

Thanks. Charlie Hoffman —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was the photographer an employee at the time? Ruslik (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that people outside of the sciences do not understand how "unprofessional" the practices are when it comes to having someone take pictures at a scientific meeting. No one at the Society for Laboratory Automation and Screening even knows who took the pictures. It may have simply been a staff member or they may have hired a photographer for the event. The bottom line is that, in general, the groups that run these meetings have little to no interest in the copyright of the photographs taken at the meeting and do not keep records about who actually took the pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:192:4A00:440:D864:BD98:46CF:844C (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is the email I received in response to my request to use this photo.

Jill Hronek <> Fri, Apr 3, 4:31 PM to

Dear Charles, Apologies for the delay in responding to this request as it just made its way to me today. You may use the photo you requested with photo credit given to SLAS/ThePhotoGroup. A link back to htts:// would be appropriate.

Best regards, Jill —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:192:4A00:440:D864:BD98:46CF:844C (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK Freedom of panorama

Hi! I'd like to edit Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom so I put a question at Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory#UK_Freedom_of_panorama. Mujinga (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OOjs UI icon check-constructive.svg OK

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Red-back spider (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roxbury Latin School seal

I found this Roxbury Latin School seal (w:File:Roxbury Latin School.png) from the New York Public Library, which is very old, but also public domain. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you have a pretty good understanding of copyright, and instead of asking for confirmation here, it's easier for you to just do the transfers yourself. -- King of ♥ 00:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why yes, I conclude that paper was dated in 1895, since the school's seal was designed by the unknown heraldist. But now, I concern that is now public domain, according to the New York Public Library. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright tag on File:Junaid_Shah.jpg

I have uploaded a picture of a bollywood actor who died yesterday. I wanted add his pic on his Wikipedia article Junaid Shah . The pic File:Junaid_Shah.jpg is taken from his own instagram profile whose link was added by me as source.

I don't think any copyright is applicable on it. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 05:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheChunky: Unfortunately, there is insufficient information at the moment to support the file, so it will be deleted unless more information can be located. You say that the image is of Junaid Shah but also say that Junaid Shah is the author. His hands are visible in the picture and he isn't holding a selfie-stick, so it is unclear how he could have taken the picture. It is likely that someone else took the picture and they hold the copyright. Even if he took the picture, every legal jurisdiction I am familiar with protects copyright for a period of years after the author's death; if he is the author and he just died then this is a copyright breach and should be deleted. The only exception to this is if the original author released the image under a suitable licence for use on Commons. I can't see anything on the Instagram page but I am not a member of that site, so I may be missing something. Do you have evidence to show it was released under a suitable licence by the true author? From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: Thanks for responding. Well, Instagram is a social media site and this pic is not that holds a copyright. Like this pic is a random by his family or friends at his home as the car number shows. And there is no copyright issue anywhere. It will be the matter of copyright if this pic was only uploaded at the same Insta only. But pic is widely used by Nation and International media just for the news, without mentioning any copyright status, they just put caption that "taken from Junaid Shah instagram". You can see it on Junaid Shah references. Hope you understand the thing I want to describe. Thanks. — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 19:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheChunky: Sorry, but all images generate copyright. There is no difference between a professional photographer in a studio and a family member making a snap on their phone in the garden. As the uploader of the image it is your responsibility to explain how the image has been licensed. If you don't know the appropriate licence then the image will be deleted. It is possible that other users of the image have paid for a licence to use the image or they could be using the image in breach of copyright law. It is Commons policy that the licence of an image should be confirmed for an image to be retained; if there is any doubt, the image is deleted. There are many images that I would like to use myself, but I can't prove the existence of a correct licence so I can't upload them. It can be irritating but those are the rules. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: Well, then find the copyright holder and delete the pic, if he allows. I believe no one will claim copyright on this. As I also live in the same region and know the nature of people here. So other things upto wiki norms. I don't want to cross the limit of norms. Thanks — The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 21:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That cool?

Special:Contributions/MarthaLetter doesn't seem legitimate, to upload a copyrighted photo with the info of a free photo 02:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted to the original version. The uploader should have saved it under a new name and included the relevant source and licensing details. From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: FYI, the image used was a 250 × 250 (19 KB) thumbnail of File:Marc Kielburger at We Day Waterloo, 2011.jpg.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 04:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Scott A. McGregor 2012.jpg

I would like some other opinions on this file's licensing. It's the only file uploaded by the account (which seems quite new). The file has EXIF data which seems to be OK and the dates, etc. also seem to match up. A smaller version of the same image, however, can also be seen here, which would seem to predate at least the file's upload to Commons. Think it's OK to just assume good-faith here or would it better to have this OTRS verified? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The name of the user account implies the image was uploaded by the man in the image. It doesn't look like a selfie, so the claim of "own work" is doubtful. As this was their first upload they probably got confused by the upload wizard interface rather than it being an intentional false claim. As a first step I'd ask them to confirm who the author was and then provide evidence of the licence (possibly via OTRS). From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radio Free Asia

Hello all. I recently uploaded an image from Radio Free Asia called File:Uyghur-document-dec2014-300.gif. However, I used the Voice of America license. Are materials credited to Radio Free Asia also covered by the same rules as media provided by Voice of America? Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to their Terms of Use their content does not appear to be entirely free. Ruslik (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like, unlike VOA, RFA is not a part of the US Federal Government. says "Radio Free Asia was founded on March 12, 1996, under the provisions of the 1994 International Broadcasting Act (P.L. 103-236), as a private non-profit corporation. RFA is funded by an annual grant from the United States Agency for Global Media.". --bjh21 (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Citroen-logo-2009.png definitely not own work, maybe meets TOO?

I came across this one with a CC license - obviously that's not right, but I'm reluctant to mark it as not meeting the threshold of originality because of the "shine". Any input here? Frood (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright of museum images

Most of the images of this article w:Ramesseum Magician’s Box come from the web (I think only the first two images are fine). I guess they need to get deleted. Can somebody look into that? I am not fully sure what to do.

File:Wooded figure-woman.png, compare]]

The following images come directly from museum datavases:

best wishes -- Udimu (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos of 3D objects require the permission of the original photographer. Did you actually take the photos as claimed in the file pages? It does not look like it. Please clarify. Ww2censor (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not take the pictures, that is not my article. I just came across it. I have the impression the pictures were just taken from the museum databases, so far as I can see, the museums did keep copyright. -- Udimu (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All that person's uploads look suspect. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Manchester Museum says, pictures are only for private use. Most of the pics come from them. The links I gave, do not show that so clearly. Here is the link to the museum database: Udimu (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK Copyright laws of 1905-1906?

There was a British book I wanted to upload to the Commons, Corps de droit ottoman. Under current UK law the terms are author's death + 50 years. George Young died in 1952, and I believe under current UK law the copyright expires 2022. I heard however that I should apply the UK law at the time of the book's publication (1905-1906). Would it be correct to say that the UK legislation at the time applies and not the current legislation (if Parliament didn't make it retroactive)? If so, would it be PD already?

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is incorrect. The European Union Copyright Directive in 1993-1995 set everything at 70 pma, even going as far to restore protection to works whose rights had expired. The UK was, naturally, subject to this. Brexit has not changed this yet, as far as I know. As such, you'll have to wait until 2023 starts. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 14:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. The UK copyright law implementing the author's life plus 70 year (70 pma) terms in 1996 was retroactive, meaning it wiped out older terms, and re-copyrighted works which had previously expired. For an author who died in 1952, the UK copyright will expire in 2023. Same for France. It's PD in the U.S. (95 years from publication) and Canada (50 pma) though. Could be uploaded to Wikilivres, if that site is still active. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Could be uploaded to Wikilivres, if that site is still active. It's not. There's a zombie shell of it at some domain or other, but for all practical purposes it's dead. However, English Wikisource will happily accept works that are PD in the US only, if you would like to transcribe it there, WhisperToMe. --Xover (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: What happened? I know that Yann had transferred it to other people many years ago. Did it end into the hands of someone who did not care and just threw the whole website to waste? -- Asclepias (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Asclepias: I have no direct knowledge, but my impression is that it's changed hands several times and eventually it just got to be too much time spent, hosting costs, and technical problems. It's been down for long periods, switched domains a couple of times, and last I checked it was "up" but serving no content. --Xover (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: Thanks for the info; that's a shame. I think this book is written in French, so not sure it's a great candidate for the English Wikisource, and I have no idea what the French Wikisource policies are. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Ah, indeed. I read "British book" and assumed it was in English despite the title. French language work is out of scope on English Wikisource, and the copyright policy on French Wikisource requires works to be public domain in France. @WhisperToMe: Apologies for the misinformation. --Xover (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: Indeed the contents are almost all in French with only the introduction in English. @Xover: It's all good! It's from an era where French was a common language in Europe and the Middle East. English didn't start being a common language in Europe until after World War I. That's why the book is in French even though it was written by a Briton and published in the UK. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WhisperToMe: Well maybe you could upload it to En-Wikisource to just transcribe the introduction :-) Then move it to Commons in 2.5 years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: That would be an excellent idea! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair Dealing Commons?


  • Wikipedia allows people to upload nearly any image, no matter how copyrighted, so long as there's a claim of fair use.
  • Wikimedia Commons does not allow the creator of a photograph to upload the image, if part of the larger scene includes something copyrighted.

Has anyone ever proposed a Commons-like website that hosts images "in the middle"? Things where the photographer themselves relinquishes all control to the container itself, but where caution should be took in the end usage of the image, to ensure that it satisfies fair use or fair dealing?

Over the years, thousands of images of costumes and similar items have been deleted from Wikimedia Commons. This project would seek to offer a middle-ground. End users of the content wouldn't be able to reproduce the image in an infringing way (on a t-shirt), but would still have a free-licensed alternative to using a file where the entire image is copyrighted. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nick Moreau, I am sure there were proposals of Commons-like websites that have less copyright protections, some of them were even implemented. The problem is that those projects are outside of Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) control and the images uploaded there are can not be used on Wikipedia. It is unlikely WMF would sanction such project or allow such images in Wikipedia articles, as they are US based organization and such website would be breaking US copyright laws, exposing them to lawsuits. --Jarekt (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zanimum: It's not «in the middle», it is the idea of fair use on en.wikipedia. A fair use implies that the non-free work is used fairly, in a particular context, for example in an article about that work or about its author. If a user uploads to en.wikipedia a photo of a non-free sculpture, to illustrate an article about that sculpture, the photographic work must be released by the photographer into the public domain or at least under a free license. That is because the article is a commentary about the sculptural work of the sculptor, not a commentary about the photographic work of the photographer. A non-free photo cannot be used, because the article constitutes a context of fair use for the work of the sculptor but not for the work of the photographer. Since the photo on en.wikipedia is free, this ensures that reusers outside wikipedia can also use the photo in a context of fair use of the sculpture. Commons, or a Commons-like website, where images are not included in the context of a substantial commentary, could not host such images because the non-free works would not be used fairly. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, "if part of the larger scene includes something copyrighted" - we do allow such images under COM:DM. It's when the image primarily serves to depict the copyrighted subject that it is not allowed on Commons. -- King of ♥ 20:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Montagu whaler

I have probably made a mess of adding this picture of a Montagu whaler ([24])because I have been warned it may be deleted due to insufficient copyright information. I have now added text used in another Imperial War Museum photograph taken by a member of the armed forces during WW2 - does this addition solve the problem?

If this text is a solution, where do you enter it in the upload wizard?

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThoughtIdRetired: To cheer up AntiCompositeBot, you need to use one of our copyright tags, because the bot can't read English. In this case, I think {{PD-UKGov}} is appropriate, since the picture was taken by a Royal Navy sailor more than 50 years ago. In the Upload Wizard you can choose "Another reason not mentioned above" and enter {{PD-UKGov}} in the box. --bjh21 (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright of works by Wikimedia Foundation representatives?

Representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation produce many works on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. Is there any default non-conventional copyright status of these works, such as a blanket Creative Commons license for them? Just as works of United States Federal Government employees acting in official capacity are in the public domain, I am wondering if there was ever agreement that all WMF staff works similarly have free and open license by default.

Some works which Wikimedia Foundation staff produce which seem like good candidates for free and open licensing include the following:

  • emails which go to public mailing lists
  • survey questions, which the Wikimedia Foundation typically distributes through the commercial services Qualtrics or Google Forms
  • speeches at public events, including when someone gives prepared remarks
  • any other kind of copyrightable media, seemingly intended for public consumption and consideration, but which gets published outside of the Wikimedia platform
  1. Has this been discussed before? If so where?
  2. What is the current state of conversation?
  3. To what extent would it be useful to request that the WMF by default make all publicly published content public domain or CC-by, if this is not already the case? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{WMF-staff-upload}} comes to mind. But not sure what is required/needed, or if all wokr made by WMF is automatically licensed as that. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Template talk:WMF-staff-upload and the meta discussion. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bluerasberry: According to internal policies, all hard-copy or online publications created by WMF employees (such as presentations, pamphlets, annual reports, and posters) must be licensed under a Creative Commons license. It is not, however, automatic (employees must actually put a license notice on the publication), and it doesn't mention anything about emails, survey questions, etc. Hope that answers your question. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks both. @Josve05a: , based on how I read what you shared at meta:special:permalink/9244620#Works_by_WMF_staff and what Ryan says, it seems that the current situation is that there is no identified official published statement. However, there is an unusual practice in place.
Normal practice for most organizations

The employer claims copyright of work for hire

Seeming practice at the Wikimedia Foundation
  • The Wikimedia Foundation claims copyright of work, with the evidence being that the WMF can apply CC licenses to employee output
  • However, the WMF gives employees leave to apply CC licenses to whatever media they produce
    • Seemingly also, the employee can claim co-copyright with the WMF if they apply CC licenses
  • By default, neither WMF nor staffers use CC licenses for the media they produce

Does this seem like a fair enough assessment of where things are right now? Where I would like to go with this is to propose (1) if it is a work of a WMF employee acting on behalf of WMF (2) if it is published media intended for everyone (3) then it should have a Wikimedia compatible copyright license by default. I would like to have a copyright template to allow anyone to upload and archive these things without permission. I am not looking to discuss that meta proposal here, but I would like to collect the precedents on this.

Does anyone else know of other past conversations on this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisiting copyrights on US patent images

Last discussion was in 2018 here. I came by this when I was about to upload an image from a US patent but noted that that language on Template:PD-US-patent specifically says that this only would apply to patents before March 1, 1989 and if not marked for copyright, which seemed odd. I see that change was apparently made in 2013, on the apparent understanding that any work published in the US after March 1, 1989 is automatically copyrighted (and what appeared to come off from Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-US-patent-no notice.

As the above linked discussed states, this is not true for patents at least in the US. The USPTO's website states from [25], bold emphasized:

Patents are published as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions. The inventors' rights to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States for a limited time is not compromised by the publication of the description of the invention. In other words, the fact that a patent's description may have been published without copyright restrictions does not give you permission to manufacture or use the invention without permission from the inventor during the active life of the patent. See MPEP § 600 - 608.01(v) regarding the right to include a copyright or mask work notice in patents.

As of Oct 31, 2019 version, 37 CFR 1.71(d)&(e) explain how, to what extent and what language one must include on a patent application to mark text or drawings as copyright, but that copyright must be as minimally as possible, while 1.84(s) is about using copyright masks/watermarks on drawings in regards to 1.71(d)&(e). The deletion notice above that led to the change in the template to add the March 1989 is misguided because again, at the core, there is no copyright restrictions on patent text or drawings unless the applicant specifically adds them. There is nothing else that gives the patent copyright protections to the applicant or the federal government outside of what they specifically tag per 1.71/1.84.

Thus, as sorta implied by the previous 2018 consensus, the 2013 change was incorrect. Apparently this had led to a number of deletions but I was more interesting in just making sure the template was accurate, that the only thing uploaders need to watch for is the 1.71/1.84 language in the patent for copyrighted elements. --Masem (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The initiator of the 2018 discussion was saying that patent applicants would somehow abandon their copyright. But he was unable to provide evidence for his view, in the law or in a contractual or declaratory clause in the patent application form or otherwise. I don't see a consensus for his view. I see that the view that the patents are copyrighted was held and explained in the 2018 discussion by Prosfilaes (and perhaps implicitly by Ghouston) and in the 2014 discussion by Elcobbola, RP88 and Magog the Ogre. I would refer to their comments. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see what's been said from those, in that, while the rules were added specifically for marking for copyright, the added language did not necessarily clear the case that copyright could be had, to the point that there has been no challenge or case to to make it clear if they are or are not copyrighted for us at Commons to presume they are in the public domain (outside of threshold of originality aspects). So until such a time case law establishes that the patent application and process is done is done in the public domain except where marked, then we have to assume some copyright may be possible outside the implicit right for the gov't to publish. --Masem (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Fairmount Bagels In Space.png

File:Fairmount Bagels In Space.png is listed as {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, but it's not clear whether a NASA astronaut took the photo, or if copyright was assigned to NASA. Reverse image searching and searching on the NASA image archive didn't find it hosted by NASA, and the source website has a 2020 copyright notice. It's the Expedition 17 crew, who were present together only between June 2, 2008 and June 11, 2008 while the STS-124 shuttle was docked. Russian and Japanese personnel were plausibly present, in addition to NASA personnel (United States government employees). Even if it can't be shown to be a free image, there might be room to host this on Wikipedia using a fair use rationale . Any opinions on what to do with this? TheFeds 09:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is clear at least is that Greg Chamitoff is not the photographer. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could easily have been a self-timer or something like that. Worst case, one of the other astronauts. If this was from a NASA website with the usual PD markings, I don't think it would be anything to worry about. However, this is not the sort of thing NASA would publish, and I would tend to agree that it feels more like an on-their-own-time type of photo, and so is likely not PD-USGov. It was not done as part of their duties at any rate :-) So I would tend to agree this is a non-free image. Mr. Chamitoff likely is the copyright holder but there is no license at the source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dutch Ministry of Defense:Update on COM:BAD?

On 2009, the Netherlands Ministry of Defence are listed as bad source per this deletion request. However, per their updated copyright policy, they stated that:Tenzij anders is vermeld, is op de inhoud van deze website de Creative Commons zero-verklaring (CC0) van toepassing. Dit houdt in dat iedere vorm van hergebruik van de inhoud van deze site is toegestaan, tenzij bij of in een bepaald onderdeel (bijvoorbeeld een foto of een document) staat aangegeven dat op dat onderdeel een auteursrechtelijke uitzondering van toepassing is., which means Unless otherwise stated, the content of this website is subject to the Creative Commons Zero Statement (CC0). This means that any form of re-use of the content of this site is permitted, unless it is indicated in or in a specific part (for example a photo or a document) that a copyright exception applies to that part. So perhaps we'll need to update the information on COM:BAD#Netherlands Ministry of Defence?廣九直通車 (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks good, and it would be worth checking if the files previously deleted are now published with CC0. --ghouston (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Multichill, Martin H., Tryphon, Ciell, and Abigor: Notifying previous discussion participants.
Due to the fact that per {{Mindef}}, we have concrete OTRS ticket, and their website now also states their license is CC0 (and by the way, as the Dutch Ministry of Defense uses EXIF to record author and copyright holder, there shouldn't have problem with source washing), I propose to delist the Dutch Ministry of Defense on COM:BAD.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Chief Hiawatha statue - panoramio.jpg

This seems to be a photo of the same statute discussed here and listed here. The statue was installed back in 1962 so perhaps it's considered defacto PD per COM:FOP United States and COM:PACUSA#Before 1978. Can such a thing, however, just be assumed or does something which clearly says as much need to be found and added to the file's description? Is there a way to "Confirm that the statue does not have a copyright notice." without actually going to where the statue is a checking for one? Is it OK to just assumed that whomever uploaded the photo to Flick'r or to Commons checked on this before licensing the photo? The reason I'm asking about this is because the file is now being used in a Wikipedia article along with lots of other photos of statues. Since many statues (at least in the US) are now being removed, etc. for various reasons, there might be an influx of photos of them being uploaded or added to Wikipedia articles, and some of them might need to have their licensing scrutinized a bit. A couple of files previously added to that particular Wikipedia article have either already been deleted/removed or are currently being discussed at COM:DR. Most of the images are probably OK, and perhaps all that is needed is for their licensing to be tweaked a bit (i.e. add a license for the statute itself in addition to the one for the photo). -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've given detailed guidance at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Copyright formalities. The rule I put there was basically: There must exist evidence, somewhere on the Internet, that the statue has no copyright notice. Or if the original uploader explicitly asserts that they searched for a copyright notice on-site and found none, we'll also COM:AGF. However, I wouldn't assume the lack of a copyright notice without anything to go on. -- King of ♥ 01:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it's documented at the Smithsonian's Art Inventories site, which most public sculpture as of the 1990s was (as this one is, here), that is usually enough -- they were very diligent about noting all transcriptions. This mentions an inscription giving the authors and the year, but nothing about a copyright notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't know about that website, added it to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Copyright formalities. -- King of ♥ 02:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@King of Hearts: The site is mentioned in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States#Freedom of panorama in the "Artworks and sculptures" section. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks King of Hearts and Clindberg for taking a look at this. Sometimes photos such as this are taken in such a way that the base/installation of the statue is not shown; which means it can be hard to discern from just the photo itself whether there is anything attached to or engraved into the base whch might be considered a copyright notice. Moreover, many photos like this which are found on sites like Flick'r or Panoramio most likely were not taken by the person who ends up uploading them to Commons; so, the original photographer probably never even considered whether they might be creating a derivative of someone else's work by taking the photo and how that might affect Commons ability to host the photo. Anyway, as I posted and linked to in my OP, I did find the work listed on the Smithsonian's website like Clindberg did, but didn't find any mention regarding its copyright status and wasn't sure whether the lack of any information about its copyright status meant it was OK to assume {{PD-US no notice}}. If that's the case, then is it necessary for a license to be provided for the statue itself in addition to the one provided for the photograph since technically the statue is not the "own work" of the person who took the photo. There are two others photos being discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:GriffithCal.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jefferson in Decatur.JPG which are similar to this one in that they are both being used in the same above-mentioned Wikipedia article about recently removed sculptures, but these two seem to be post-1978 works which may make all of the difference when it comes to their copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Smithsonian site you found had generally the same information, but omitted the "Inscriptions" section for some reason, which is where they mention any copyright notices if they exist. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that. Does this file need a PD license for the statue or is it fine as is? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly doesn't hurt. I have often seen separate licenses under "Photo:" and "Statue:" headings. Documenting the sculptors might also be good. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Copyright information}} is the right template for that. -- King of ♥ 21:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't know about that one, but there is {{Licensed-PD}} which I had forgotten about as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg and King of Hearts: I've gone ahead and added {{Copyright information}} to the file's page as suggested above. I've never used that particular template before and I might've forgot something. The part about the photo seems redundant; so, feel free to tweak things as needed. Thanks again for you input here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jade Simmons for United States President.jpg

File is uploaded under a {{CC-by-SA-4.0}} license and it has EXIF data. File is attributed to a Michael Gillman and this is given as its souce. This seems to be the work of a profoessional photographer, perhaps for the purpose of PR releases, etc. designed to promote the subject. However, the source website is password protected so the license cannot be verified, and there's no indication that the uploader is claiming to be the copyright holder. Can this be kept as is or should it be verified by OTRS? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've tagged it as no permission. -- King of ♥ 00:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for taking a look at this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If an image contains a nonfree/proprietary font, am I correct in thinking the image itself is nonfree and thus shouldn't be on the Commons?

This image prompted me to write this: LLA logo large.png (which uses a custom nonfree font seen here), but I'm sure there's others.

I've made an SVG version of that LLA logo image, with just the main 'LLA' part and not the text below, would that be okay (using PD-shape)?

The template PD-textlogo and similar are used to justify this and other logos etc. What's the criteria for those PD-* templates being appropriate?

Thanks - odg (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the US, typefaces can't be copyrighted. Computer fonts can be, as they contain computer code, but none of the copyrighted material is preserved in a raster image or printed version. At least for US logos, the way text is written, even custom or handwritten material, is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah that's interesting, I didn't know that, thanks. So pure-text images like logos are only protected by trademark law rather than copyright. But artwork is protected under copyright, so does that mean the law has to distinguish between art with text in it (like a more elaborate logo), and works that are solely text? Sounds like it could be hard to tell sometimes, between a typeface and surrounding art. odg (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UK law has a provision where any usage of a font is not covered by the font's copyright, but if you are trying to make another font, then that's not OK. I would imagine that U.S. judges would likely rule around the same lines -- if the company had bought rights to use the font in their logo, seems reasonable that anyone making a copy of that logo is also OK, but if you are trying to piece together letters to make another font, not so good. SVG font contact sheets could be an issue, but I doubt usages along these lines are an issue. Not heard of any court case along those lines, at any rate. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For that specific one, irrespective of font issues, it might above UK TOO - IMO it's more complex than w:File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg, which a court ruled to be copyrightable in the UK. -- King of ♥ 14:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploads by Ronster007

Ronster007 is a new account that has uploaded a number of files in the past few days. All of them are being claimed as "own work", and I believe the account is probably same person Ron Shien show in some of the photos who seems to be in charge of or to have founded the organization/company en:The Mad Science Group; so, perhaps all that is needed for many of these files is OTRS verification. Some like File:Clue-me-in.jpg and File:Star-trek-live-ontario-science-centre.jpg aren't so clear and actually might be COM:DWs. Many of the files seem to have already been tagged with {{Npd}} by other editors, but I'm not sure of the best way to deal with those which might be derivatives. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/files in Category:Australian state route signs

Posting this here as I would like some copyright experts to weigh in (especially with Australian copyright). I think we all want to have these files on Commons, but I want to do this the right (and legal) way. --Rschen7754 04:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture of actors from the movie premiere

Greetings, experts!

I'm working on a page based on the 2002 Spider-Man movie. I want to upload photos of actors from the same year. I found a picture of Tobey Maguire from the movie premiere. Can I upload it, and under what license?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Хөсәен (talk • contribs) 10:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Хөсәен: You cannot upload the files of the Spider-Man movie as the creator has not died more than than 70 years ago nor has the Spider-Man movie been created more than 70 years ago. See Commons:Hirtle chart. --Red-back spider (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photos from the premiere would be unrelated to the copyright of the movie itself. But the photograph has its own copyright which lasts just as long; you would need to get that licensed per the rules in Commons:Licensing. Generally, images you find on the internet are not licensed that way and cannot be used. Only the copyright owner can license it, which is usually the photographer, and most commercial photographers (for quite understandable reasons) would not want to license their photos that way. It's much easier to take your own photos (the same way we ask article writers to write their own article text). There are some sources of freely-licensed photos, such as a few on Flickr where they give authors the ability to mark photos with such licenses. You can look through Category:Tobey Maguire to see the photos we do have available to use; not sure we have any from 2002 though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright of WWII UK government documents

I have an example of a WWII "Combined Intelligence Objective Sub-Committee report on the Bachem Natter interceptor project", dated July 1945. The 14-page report was written by a US Navy team and published by H.M. Stationary office. It contains mainly technical data - including hand drawings - and interrogation details of the German project team members. The report appears in the Natter Wiki page ( references as "Millikan, Clarke B. Natter Interceptor Project. CIOS Report No. XXX-107. London: HMSO, July 1945." (the actual CIOS target number on my example is 5/182a)

I would like to upload a scan to the Natter WikiCommons page - AFAIK such Government documents (US - not sure about British) are not subject to any copyright restrictions.

Advice ?

Thanks - cshenorr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cshenorr (talk • contribs) 07:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the docs were indeed UK Crown Copyright, they should be covered by {{PD-UKGov}}. Jheald (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image from ru.wikipedia to commons

I don't know if this is the right place for my issue. There is the file on ru:Файл:Леонид Курчевский.jpeg I would like to have on commons, but I'm not capable of russian so can someone do the transfer to commons ?Avron (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Work by UK military personnel

Am I right in thinking that works by members of the British military, such as paintings done when off-duty, while serving overseas in WWII, are now {{PD-UK-Gov}}, regardless of the date of death? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, PD-UKGov is similar to PD-USGov, in that works must be done "in the course of his duties". Stuff done on their own time, or done by their own volition even when on-duty, are the person's own copyright. Before 1989, PD-UKGov was for works "made by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department", and also works "first published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or a Government department". That seems to be similar, in that off-duty stuff would not be included, unless the work was later given to the government to publish. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's my understanding for the works for civilian employees. But I seem to recall that the terms of enlistment were such that, for the duration of service, all works belonged to the crown. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've not heard that -- but that would be a separate contractual thing rather than per copyright law itself. If they were published by the government at the time, yes they were Crown Copyright, but unsure about any specific enlistment terms. Got a reference? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restored from the archives; the wording I was thinking of is discussed above, and is:

"Photographs taken, or artworks created, by a member of the forces during their active service duties are covered by Crown Copyright provisions. Faithful reproductions may be reused under that licence, which is considered expired 50 years after their creation."

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that marked on some images here, but no source for it. If it's Crown Copyright, then it would be that way by operation of their law, so the wording in their law is the important text -- the above may just be a generalization and not a legal text where you parse words carefully. If you find photos taken by soldiers on government websites, it should be fine to assume they were Crown Copyright. But I have not heard of any reference which extends Crown Copyright beyond what their law says. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I am by no means an expert but I think the argument for Crown Copyright over the works of British military personnel taken while off duty is fairly weak. For one thing, most of those images were for personal use and never published. During WW2, the UK had specific personnel in photography units to take official photographs; all of these official photographs acquired Crown Copyright and we have many of them here. I don't think I have seen any non-official photographs here from British personnel, except where they died more than 70 years ago. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, but I'm not making an "arguement", I'm asking a question. The answer can only be "yes" or "no". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Hi. You appear to have misinterpreted me slightly. I was talking about a hypothetical argument and I specifically avoided saying it was an argument that you made. Talking through the context of a position (or argument) helps to draw out the issues and decide on the merits of a particular stance. While you would like a "yes" or "no" answer, I don't think it would have been helpful to give you a simple, "no" without context. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • After some digging, I think I have found an answer. The 1911 Copyright Act, in force during WWI/WWII, made it clear that in the general case, someone who is an employee only assigned copyright to their employer if the work was done in the course of employment. So as you say, it would have to be a question of their terms of service.
In the 1935 King's Regulations (para 535, p 189), it's clearly stated that copyright "is vested in HMSO" for "all photographs taken officially for government purposes, or taken unofficially with government materials". (There is a similar phrasing in the current version: "Photographs taken with official equipment or material, whether or not for authorized purposes, are also Crown copyright.") For other material, "any information of a professional nature gathered while travelling or on duty" was "property of the War Department", though this does not seem to have quite been copyright per se (it was intended to prevent it from being published). Other creative works - paintings, novels, poems, etc - are not covered and so presumably the general rule applies.
This would mean that if you were a serving soldier and took a photo with your own camera and film, copyright remained with you. If you borrowed an Army camera and Army film, then under the Regulations, the results would be Crown Copyright (if they ever found out...). But if you did a painting or wrote a novel, even if you'd borrowed Army canvas or an Army typewriter, the result was still yours under the Copyright Act. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A couple of additional thoughts on this:
a) King's Regulations were for the Army; I think it is reasonable to assume regulations for the other services were broadly similar.
b) There seems to be some kind of oddly specific setup for officers, where this only applies if they are on full pay, not half pay (that would not be much of an issue in wartime, but it adds to the complication).
c) The situation where "some off-duty stuff is covered, if official resources were used" seems only to apply to photographs; no other creative works are mentioned, and the caveats for "information of a professional nature" are about permission to publish, rather than claiming copyright in the final work. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The plot thickens. King's Regulations 1912 (1914 amendment) do not have this clause; para 453 is broadly similar to the 1935 Regulations, but does not contain the copyright clause or mention photography. It is oriented very much towards "you shall not publish without permission", rather than using copyright as a mechanism for this. So the rule came in sometime between 1914 and 1935. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And while I cannot find a later Army KR, the 1918 King's Regulations for the Air Force have more or less identical text to the 1912 Army ones. This strongly suggests that the "taken unofficially with government materials" rule appeared sometime after WWI, but has been in force since. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the references -- they are interesting. I doubt that personal cameras were a particular concern during WWI. The 35mm personal cameras didn't really start being produced until the mid-1920s I don't think. (There was apparently one released in the U.S. before the war, but only about 1000 were sold before the war shut down production.) At any rate, taking a photo using your employer's equipment may qualify it as "work for hire" under U.S. rules, so that provision makes some sense, and seems more a clarification than anything extending beyond what was in law. The Copyright Act 1911 said: Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty. So, anything created as part of duties, or even just first published by the government (which apparently could override previously private copyright), was Crown Copyright. That wording was strengthened a bit in the 1956 Act, and it was only the 1988 Act which removed the publishing provision. But it would seem the military regulations are in line with that; primarily just works done as part of duties (or using government cameras) are Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1911 act already provided that "the person who was owner of [the original] negative at the time when such negative was made shall be deemed to be the author of the work". Photographs taken with army film were Crown copyright even if taken with personal cameras. The [-1935] regulation seems to add the case where photographs were taken by members with their personal films with army cameras. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IBM 2250 Sikorsky Aircraft advertisement

This photograph is from the 11th issue of the 11th volume of Communications of the ACM. I have come here to inquire about the copyright status of the photograph, as I am not experienced with determining the statuses of old American advertisements, specifically before 1977.

It is a 1968 advertisement for the IBM 2250. In just this photograph alone, I see no evidence of its containing a copyright notice. That, along with the year of the advertisement's publication, would be excellent for Commons because of this license, except that I strongly presume the actual advertisement contains more than just a photograph. Why would IBM release or authorize such an advertisement containing only a raw photograph, expecting that everyone will readily understand not just the subject, but the advertisement itself? Unfortunately, the CACM issue seems to be only accessible if it is purchased, and I have no intentions of buying the issue just to look at the full advertisement.

It would be helpful if anyone here has that CACM issue or at least knows about the advertisement. In the event that the advertisement lacks a copyright notice, I am tempted to say that the photograph would be suitable for Commons. However, given my lack of experience, I kindly ask that I better understand how to determine with certainty whether an old advertisement without a copyright notice has entered the public domain. I view this as a learning opportunity, and any feedback is appreciated. GaɱingFørFuɲ365 00:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeMediaKid! (talk • contribs) 00:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be helpful to see the whole advertisement. For the most part, a single copyright notice on a magazine or newspaper (which are "collective works") was enough to cover all contained works within, except advertisements. So, we do have a {{PD-US-no notice advertisement}} license tag for this situation. It would be fairly obvious if there was a notice or not if you could see the whole ad. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Copyright Laundering"

I am sure I am not the first to see this, and I am sure it has been discussed before. Please forgive me. I am not a Commons regular. Please ping me on any part of the conversation you would like me to join in on. I apologise in advance for any copyright naïveté, of whcih I have quite a lot!

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Noam Yaron.jpg where I am calling into question the route by which this file arrived on Commons. It may be valid, If so I'd like to know, please, to avoid my nomination similar things I find for deletion. If it is not valid, is out a route that Commons views as difficult? Timtrent (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usually there is nothing wrong with uploading photos from other websites as long as there is a verifiable free licence. For this particular image though, your concerns seem to be valid as I have pointed out in the deletion discussion. De728631 (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have an uneasy feeling that I, and I am sure others, have found an iceberg tip. It shows me that we need to be vigilant with self edited sites. We, here, are vigilant; other sites not so much. So my purpose here, since I am inexperienced in Commons mechanisms, is to ask an experienced Commons editor to take this forward if this is not the right venue. Timtrent (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes this happens, see Commons:License laundering. If there is significant doubt to a stated source license, you can start a deletion review/request. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Elizabeth Taylor, late 1950s.jpg

This seems a little underdocumented compared to what I'm used to. How does it look to everyone else? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You doubt that there was no notice? Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like another attempt at quoting an illogically-reasoned template that purports to resolve the issue of copyright of Hollywood pictures—basically special pleading. Since the description box states that it is an MGM photo dated late 1950s, the editors should have asserted in good faith or provided evidence that (for example) the photo was taken in the United States and published soon afterward, and that no copyright information was on the back side, or that they searched the copyright register and found no timely renewal. The issue of authorship (whether or not anonymous) should also have been addressed by the uploader. The fact that this might very well be public domain is not the same thing as being able to declare with sufficient confidence that it is public domain based on the facts presented. TheFeds 10:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do normally like to see the back, to show dating and that there was no notice there. It sure looks like a publicity photo at the time though, one for which there should also be a copyright renewal in order for copyright to still exist. Given that this photo seems like it's all over the net, including in multiple photo archives (Getty attributes it to a photo collection they bought, so it was clearly published in that era to become part of that collection in the first place), it seems virtually certain that it is PD. The quoted rationales on the image page itself are indeed not reasons to keep them -- they accurately describe how such photos can become public domain but they are not evidence for this photo in particular. However given that it seems certain that it was published before 1964, and that most other parties seem to be treating it as PD, I think it's fine. If you can find a copyright renewal, that would change things of course. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or discuss?

I created a deletion discussion for all the files in Category:Oswald Wirth Tarot - The Tarot of the Magicians version, but it seems like a pretty clear-cut copyright violation. As an administrator, should I just go ahead and delete them rather than wasting time with a discussion that might take months to be closed? Kaldari (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would leave the discussion open for complicated cases like this. Someone might discover a reason why the cards are actually PD, like if the same design can be found elsewhere before 1925 or on a work with no copyright notice before 1978/1989. -- King of ♥ 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the advise. I'll leave it open. Kaldari (talk) 17:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paraguay stamps

{{PD-Paraguay-stamp}} says these stamps are PD, while Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Paraguay says they are not. — Racconish💬 09:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template PD-Paraguay-stamp was made in 2008, on the basis of a previous version of Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Paraguay, which between 2007 and 2018 said that the stamps were in the public domain. That version was written in 2007 by a user [26] on the basis of a statement from someone from the Philatelic Bureau of the government of Paraguay, as mentioned there. In 2018, another user [27] [28] changed this entry to the present version, which suggests that the stamps are not free. Who is correct and what to do? Well, it can be noted that the 2007 statement from the government employee does not provide any reference in its support. In this sort of situation, it can be disputed if an employee has the legal competence and authority to make such a statement. The present version of Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Paraguay seems more in line with the precautionary principle policy of Commons, unless someone finds a convincing legal reference to support the other view. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No explicit exception for stamps in the applicable law. The template is now misleading. Side note : Jack Child, the author of the 2007 assessment, writes here that "with some few exceptions (current US Stamps being the most prominent) postage stamps are in the public domain since they are government documents", which is not right, particularly in South America. — Racconish💬 12:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Butko: do you agree ? — Racconish💬 12:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aymatth2: your opinion ? — Racconish💬 14:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have nominated {{PD-Paraguay-stamp}} for deletion. — Racconish💬 12:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this logo too complex and over British threshold of originality (TOO)?

Harris + Hoole logo.svg

Some DR for reference: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Northeast airlines uk logo.svg Commons:Deletion requests/File:BBC.svg Commons:Deletion requests/File:HSBC.svg Commons:Deletion requests/File:Supergrouplogo.png.--RZuo (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RZuo: That logo seems to me to be on par with the others you linked, and therefore fine, though you've only linked DRs that were kept and none that were deleted, so it's hard to get a full picture. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For one, I cant see deleted files. For two, there is just no such simple logos that could attract copyright and be deleted on Commons.--RZuo (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Harris + Hoole logo.svg.--RZuo (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]