Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for general discussions relating to copyright and license issues, and for discussions relating to specific files' copyright issues. Discussions relating to specific copyright policies should take place on the talk page of the policy, but may be advertised here. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note

One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
Have you read the FAQ?
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the Internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Please do not make deletion requests here – instead, use the relevant process for it.

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

Gestioné una donación de fotografías a Commons pero me borraron las fotos (sí se mandó el correo de confirmación) :c

Gestioné una donación de fotografías para Commons y a pesar de que la persona con los derechos envió el correo de confirmación y este fue recibido, estas fueron borradas, alguien podría explicarme porque sucede esto? Anteriormente he gestionado donaciones y no hubo problemas; sin embargo, desde que actualizaron la interfaz de subidas sí, ya van dos donaciones que me son borradas.

Las categorías en cuestión fueron estas:

Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria

Category:Donación Archivo Jorge Quispe Mamani QM Keen (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QM Keen habría que ver cuáles fueron los archivos subidos, tienes una lista? Bedivere (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

En mi página de discusión está la lista que hizo el bot, las copio aquí:

Me pregunto si las fotografías pueden ser vueltas a poner en Commons o tengo que subirlas otra vez?

QM Keen (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the messages on your talk page, the files were tagged by a bot because there was no license template with the files. Yes, the files can be undeleted. Please do not reupload copies of the same files. If they are undeleted, please make sure that they have license templates. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QM Keen Tal como dijo Asclepias, los archivos no tenían licencia y por eso fueron borrados. Si enviaron correo con autorización a VRT pronto deberían ser restaurados Bedivere (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cómo me aseguro que las fotografías tengan la plantilla de licencia? Es decir, yo seleccioné la opción de Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International en el Upload Wizard al subirlas e incluso en el correo de confirmación esta misma licencia es la que se otorga para la donación. Se supone que tengo que poner una plantilla manualmente al código de cada fotografía?

Ahora, sobre su restauración, si bien la última donación que me borraron fue hoy, la primera fue el 25 de enero, en el que también me las borraron cuando también mande el correo, entonces, dado el considerable paso del tiempo entre la primera borrada y el hecho de que hasta hoy no las hayan restaurado (a pesar del correo de confirmación) me hace pensar que no serán restauradas.

Tengo un nuevo archivo de fotografías que he gestionado para su donación, esta vez no quiero que sean borradas, me podrían acompañar con el proceso? Para esta vez asegurarme que no sean borradas. QM Keen (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Este es el texto de una de tus subidas:

{{User:AntiCompositeBot/NoLicense/tag|month=March|day=8|year=2025}}

==={{int:filedesc}}===
{{Information
|description={{es|1=Fotografías donadas por La Comuna Universitaria. En estas se ilustra las manifestaciones realizadas el 9 de enero del 2025 en la ciudad de Juliaca a los dos años de la masacre ocurrida en la misma ciudad.}}
{{en|1=Photographs donated by La Comuna Universitaria. These represent the demonstrations held on January 9, 2025, in the city of Juliaca, marking two years since the massacre that took place in the same city.}}
|date=2025-01-09
|source=Archivo La Comuna Universitaria 
|author=María Herrera - La Comuna Universitaria
|permission=
|other versions=
}}
{{Location|-15.493306|-70.13557}}

==={{int:license-header}}===
{{Permission_pending}}

[[Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria]]
[[Category:Demonstrations and protests on January 9, 2025 on the 2nd anniversary of the Juliaca Massacre 2023 (principal day)]]

Como puedes ver, no incluiste la licencia y por esa razón fueron borradas. El bot las pilló rápidamente y las etiquetó como sin licencia. Así, Krd las borró. Yo podría restaurarlas con el compromiso de que agregues las licencias y esperando también la recepción del permiso en VRT. Bedivere (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfecto, muchas gracias, también podrías restauras las fotografías que subí el 25 de enero? Las de aquí: File:Instalaciones del colegio Agro Industrial Pucará en 1998 15.jpg , en estas también se envió un correo de confirmación.

Ahora, podrías indicarme cómo agrego la plantilla en cuestión? Entiendo que es con código cierto? Además, cómo puedo agregar la plantilla a todas las fotografías, que son más de 30 juntando ambas donaciones. Por último, cómo puedo hacer para que al subir otra vez una donación de fotografías no ocurra este problema? En el upload wizard hay un paso en específico? Tengo más de 100 fotos más para subir y no quiero que ocurra esto otra vez :c QM Keen (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solo debes elegir la licencia al subir. Y si, se agrega el código de la licencia (no la agrego yo pues tu las subiste). Debes hacer eso cuanto antes pues te las pueden borrar nuevamente. Bedivere (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entiendo, haré lo que mencionas, si no te molesta te escribiré por aquí para ver si todo esta bien en esta nueva donación que haŕe. Muchas gracias y por favor avísame cuando las fotos borradas sean restauradas, muchas gracias. QM Keen (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Están restauradas @QM Keen, desde mi mensaje anterior. Bedivere (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @Bedivere, gracias por restaurar las fotografías. Acabo de agregar la plantilla de licencia Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International a las fotografías alojadas en las siguientes categorías, ambas son donaciones gestionadas para ser liberadas en Commons:

Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria

Category:Donación Archivo Jorge Quispe Mamani

He notado que las fotografías alojadas en Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria tienen la siguiente plantilla:

Sin embargo, el correo de confirmación hacia el equipo de VRT fue enviado ya incluso antes de que las fotos fueran inicialmente borradas y en esta se menciona explícitamente lo siguiente: "Consiento publicar dicha obra bajo la licencia libre Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International", yo puedo proporcionar la declaración de consentimiento si es necesario, solicitar una captura del correo a la autora (María - La Comuna) o pedir que se reenvía el correo y avisarte, agradecería mucho que me indiques como puedo resolver este problema, no quisiera que las fotografías fueran eliminadas de nuevo. QM Keen (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tienes que esperar a que los voluntarios de VRT revisen el correo, puede que sea necesario que acredites que tienes los derechos, esto es especialmente importante si se trata de donaciones con material generado por terceros. No es un proceso simple y ahora solo queda esperar. Si llegan a ser borrados nuevamente, cuando lo revise un voluntario serán restaurados. Bedivere (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok gracias por al ayuda QM Keen (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganímedes (no se me ocurre otra voluntaria que podría ayudar) Espero estés muy bien. ¿Podrías dar un vistazo a la solicitud de QM Keen, cuando puedas? Te estaría muy agradecido. Bedivere (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hola, gracias por avisar. ¿Tienes el número de ticket que recibiste con el email de respuesta automática? --Ganímedes (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QM Keen Favor dar respuesta a Ganímedes. Bedivere (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, lo solicitaré a la autora de las fotos lo más pronto posible. 2803:A3E0:1812:4840:D7D:574E:9346:5F0 16:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @Ganímedes el del mensaje anterior era yo solo que no me loguié en mi cuenta, en fin, aquí te paso el ticket de confirmación: 2025031010010953 QM Keen (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La poseedora de los derechos de autor debe contestar la pregunta que le ha hecho el agente en el ticket. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Atte @Mussklprozz. --Ganímedes (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, ayer la autora me dijo que ya respondió la pregunta, acabo de ver que las fotos fueron borradas :c, podrían restaurarlas porfa @Ganímedes @Bedivere QM Keen (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @QM Keen, recibimos la respuesta de María Herrera el 25 de marzo (a través de Ticket:2025031010010953), y he solicitado que se restauren sus imágenes. A continuación, añadiré una nota de autorización a los archivos. Pero, ¿qué pasa con las otras imágenes, en particular las de Jorge Quispe Mamani? Para ellas también necesitamos la autorización del fotógrafo. Un saludo, Mussklprozz (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias por restaurarlas @Mussklprozz. Por otro lado, sobre las fotografìas de Jorge Quispe Mamani tenía pensado que ya estaba todo bien con ellas, el autor envió el correo de confirmación hace meses, en enero. También hice la donación de las siguientes fotos: Category:Donación de fotografías La Comuna Universitaria - Maira Teran Ulloa, el correo ya fue enviado, agradecerìa que me confirmaras si esta todo bien con ellas. QM Keen (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @QM Keen, sobre las fotografìas de Jorge Quispe ¿podrías decirme los números de los dos ticketes de autorización en enero? Entonces puedo ver el procedimiento. Mussklprozz (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @Mussklprozz lamento la demora, el autor es profesor y es una persona ocupada y recién hoy me pudo enviar el ticket, aquí te lo remito 2025013010000206.

Agradecería me comentaras a la brevedad la situación de las fotografías.

Ten un lindo día :3. QM Keen (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @QM Keen, No se pudo seguir procesando el Ticket:2025013010000206 porque el cliente no respondió a una pregunta. Un saludo, Mussklprozz (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @Mussklprozz se podría volver a enviar esta pregunta y demás? No sabía que no se llegó a efectuar completamente la donación, las fotografías en cuestión son de alto valor, el donante, es un profesor de campo y conseguirlas fue un trabajo arduo, agradecería que tuvieran más consideración, debido al trabajo se le hace algo difícil lo de revisar el correo, en unos días yo estaré con él personalmente para ver este asunto, gracias. QM Keen (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @QM Keen, ahora también recibimos la autorización de Maira Teran Ulloa para sus imágenes y etiquetamos los archivos en consecuencia. Mussklprozz (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola @QM Keen, volví a enviar la consulta sobre las imágenes de Jorge Quispe. Un saludo, Mussklprozz (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias @Mussklprozz. Cuántos días es el tiempo para responder la pregunta de confirmación del correo? Para tenerlo en cuenta.

Además, acabo de terminar una nueva donación, con la que sumarían dos nuevas:

Category:Donación Familia Flores Ortega

Category:Donación Familia Ortega Ramos

En ambas aún falta el correo, en la primera de ella se trata de una persona mayor por lo que tomará algo más de tiempo, espero su paciencia y comprensión, gracias. QM Keen (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QM Keen, para las nuevas donaciones supongo que continuamos aquí en tu página de discusión. No es de desear que las discusiones 1:1 se lleven a cabo interminablemente en la fuente del pueblo. ;-) Mussklprozz (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JAJAJA, dale, hablamos por ahí, dejemos el canal de pueblo para cosas más urgentes, un saludos desde Puno :3. QM Keen (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyleft trolling - proceeding to watermark images

The same image, cropped with CSS image crop so the watermark is not visible.

Hi, one year ago we had a major case of Copyleft trolling discovered, with over a thousand images (partly featured) being hosted on our platform as bait to sue anyone for "damages" when re-using the material. Afterwards, we created a new page (the bolded one above) to take action against those who try to indiscriminately sue re-users of Commons-hosted pictures for money. In short: After confirming that a user is copyleft trolling, possible fixes are persuasion of the user not to do this; if continued we have to delete or forcibly watermark images. Those actions prevent both innocent re-users from overlooking the possibility of a lawsuit; and less innocent users on Commons to just follow the set example.

In the case from last year, the user in question has not stopped to extract money from unsuspecting re-users (1, 2, 3) and also a DR against the images has ended in (ca.) 12:19 (Kept). This means that forced watermarking is the last resort left for the community.
Since this is the first test of a new and not fully tested process (the last time we did this was in 2019), it is only prudent to ask again for a community consensus. A script is available that can quickly attach the attribution watermark. --Enyavar (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is interesting especially for the known copyright trolls from Germany. Happy to provide a list. For reference, we have a designated page in the German-language Wikipedia for this phenomenon: de:Wikipedia:Abmahnung. Gnom (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)f=[reply]

This is complicated. We've had many discussions about copyleft trolling as well as alleged cases of copyleft trolling, and many discussions about possible solutions. This much is clear: once we have determined someone is engaging in copyleft trolling, there are several possible approaches, including deletion and forced watermarking. There are parallel discussions about improvements we could make to the Wikipedia/MediaWiki interface to better explain the requirements of CC licenses, but that's something that should happen irrespective of actions on specific users. This particular case involves Diliff, and much text has been spilled debating what to do about these images: VP thread, another VP thread, and a DR. I have trouble determining the extent to which consensus emerged that Diliff has been "copyleft trolling" sufficient to consider an intervention, so figuring that out is probably what needs to happen first. Personally, I remain ambivalent. I don't like the idea of people using Commons to make money through a license enforcement business model, but I also don't think Diliff is as egregious as, say, Verch (who allegedly only uploaded material to Commons in order to profit). Diliff is a different case, apparently just going after commercial sites/businesses. But then again, that includes small businesses and, according to what he said in a past discussion, even when he determines there was no serious offense, he still wants money for the time he took to determine it was not a serious offense. Nearly lost me completely with that response. So yeah, ambivalent. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Consensus has already been established that we should watermark images that are being used for copyleft trolling unless the uploader agrees to migrate to a CC 4.0 license. Diliff rejected that suggestion as he believed that the 30-day grace period offered by the CC 4.0 license had "not been considered from the content creator's perspective with respect to the potential income it takes from them".[1] He also refused to discontinue sending legal threats via Pixsy.[2] The fact that Diliff is demanding compensation for accidental attribution errors even when the reusers have offered to correct the attribution or remove the images entirely[3][4][5], means that Diliff has gone beyond seeking fair compensation for use of his images and is copyleft trolling, IMO. The only way we can protect unwitting re-users from accidentally getting ensnared in this trap is to add a watermark to the images (or delete them). Adding a watermark seems the least destructive path. Nosferattus (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the watermark isn't aggressive enough, it reads more like a threat by the uploader than the warning about the author it is supposed to be. JayCubby (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not elegant, but I support it, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just delete them all so that he learns the lesson. On the down side, we'd be missing on some great photos. Bedivere (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It gives us another tool besides deletion. Will we be able to detect people reverting or overwriting the change? Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add a category for those images, then have a process that detects whenever a user other than an admin (or bot) changes an image with that category? Ravensfire (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that Diliff would revert the change; he is largely inactive and has not uploaded new files for five years now.
We should mark the edits clearly as an administrative action with referral to the Copyleft Trolling policy, to discourage other users from reverting. And yes, a hidden category to collect all watermarked files sounds prudent. Not sure how to patrol it by bot, but even if that isn't feasible, humans could also patrol the category for a while to find out if other parties crop the images. (And on that note, determined editors could probably also remove the category as well?) --Enyavar (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a way to crop thumbnails without creating a new file if I recall correctly, so the watermark isn't a nuisance on mainspace articles. Perhaps make a note of that on the affected files, to discourage unwatermarking. JayCubby (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{CSS image crop}}. It's a little tricky and tends to require some experimentation with the exact parameters used. See example I've added at top of this discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 22:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support This seems like a no brainer given the circumstances around copyleft trolling on here. Although it sucks for re-users and other projects but whatever. There doesn't seem to be a better way to deal with it at this point. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Nobody seems to be engaging with the whole "there hasn't actually been consensus that the person whose images we're about to watermark is engaging in copyleft trolling" thing. That seems like the sort of thing we need to do officially, like a topic ban or somesuch. The closest thing we have is a DR where multiple options were proposed and was closed as keep. We also have a discussion closure (fraught -- still waiting for the closing admin to clarify their intentions) that once someone is found to be copyleft trolling, follow steps xyz. Presumably the subtext is not "if you see someone doing what looks like copyleft trolling, go ahead and watermark their images". This thread may suffice to find consensus specific to Diliff, but if that's what's happening they should really be notified and the heading clarified. A little awkward to be the one who has to keep drawing attention to this, since I found Diliff's responses in the last thread totally inadequate, but oh well. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I just notified Diliff on his talk page. Nosferattus (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"there hasn't actually been consensus ...that Diliff is a copyleft ~~troll~~ enforcer"? Really? We have seen about ten examples of people coming to his talk pages asking him if the extortion letters were written on his behalf (I found three just since the DR was closed); and Diliff himself has not been willing or able to provide examples of him waiving the fees he imposed on these individuals. It doesn't matter that he claims to only charge commercial re-uses, because a) we can hardly control him on that and b) that will still affect mostly small companies and also nonprofits. c) It also goes counter to our Copyleft-trolling policy page (edit: which should be renamed, see my next post from April 5).

People have voted to keep his images while still acknowledging that he is a copyleft enforcer because we believed that there was another way to deal with this problem. And I say "we" because I also voted "keep and watermark". I do think that the voting could have been narrowly swung the other way if we had known that watermarking were not an option.

If we're letting this slide we can just agree to delete that Copyleft Policy altogether. --Enyavar (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been soulsearching a bit and decided that I will not continue calling Diliff a "troll". Please also see Commons talk:Copyleft trolling#Name of the policy page.

Regardless of the internal motives and thought processes of Diliff as a Copyleft Enforcer, we urgently need to protect re-users from the consequences of his practice. We absolutely should watermark these images, and also keep Diliff as an upstanding (former) member of the Commons community. --Enyavar (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion: Commons:Village_pump#Copyleft_enforcement_-_concern_about_stretching_of_a_guideline — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to repeat what I said here but it is relevant to this discussion. Enyavar, would you drop this please. We don't need to urgently protect stupid people from being stupid. Thousands of people have used Diliff's images per the licence conditions. Your post lists three, two of which openly admit to not bothering to attribute at all (i.e. they are of the "everything on the internet is free to take" mindset) and the other appears to have had problems with Wordpress displaying the attribution. In none of those cases do we know how it ended up. Hundreds of people ask Diliff how they can use his images and he guides them. Many who want to do so without attribution, for non-profit/charity work, are granted that permission. This is not a copyleft troll, Jmabel, and we all need to drop that kind of Twitter-rant language and start behaving more professionally. The Pixby solution is suboptimal for sure, and nobody here likes it, but there also isn't a professional outfit doing this kind of thing who behave any better.

Commons is an image repository of freely licenced or PD images. It's primary purpose is to serve as a common host for the Wikipedias and other WMF projects. If you guys decide to vandalise images in this repository, Wikipedia is just gonna fork and you'll be irrelevant. The above image with attribution/warning caption is then displayed as an example of use on Wikipedia with the caption cropped off. Are you insane? That's only going to make it worse. Please pursue Wikipedia/WMF to help fix their terrible image use UI. Every other publisher on the internet displays CC images with attribution in text below the image. Wikipedia does not, and seems to think a subtle hyperlink is enough. But it (and your stupid cropped solution) both teach our reusers that attribution is not important. This is Wikipedia/WMF's fault. They should fix it. Let's not vandalise our repository. These images do not belong to us. -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Logo MTUB 2014.jpg

Can someone confirm if user Th11 was involved in the design of the MTUB logo at File:Logo MTUB 2014.jpg? If not, I am minded to consult on relicensing the logo as {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}}. This question came into my mind while considering uploading an SVG version of the logo. --Minoa (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Minoa: You can add those regardless. - Jmabel ! talk 23:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done: in addition, the SVG version is now uploaded to Brussels Tram Museum Logo.svg. --Minoa (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:JikjiType.gif

I came across this because the English Wikipedia claimed it was the actual type used to create Jikji (Jikji Simche) - the earliest known book printed with moveable metal type.

I thought it unlikely that the type would have survived along with the book. The original reference[6] is available at the Internet Archive, and does not refer to the picture at all, merely using it as an illustration (at least on the archive date I was using).

I modified the caption, but I was still uneasy so I dug a little further, this page, which includes an image of a very similar plate. (Note: this image is a reflection of the other, and some of the characters are definitely different. This is probably do to an incorrect reflection to make it readable, but may be due to trying different printing techniques.)

Google translate says: "This work was restored by Mr. Oh Guk-jin in 2001. As the first volume of the metal type edition of “Baekun Hwasang Chorok Buljo Jikji Simche Yojeol” no longer remains, this work is a restored typeface and type plate based on the content of the first volume of the woodblock edition and the font of the second volume of the metal type edition."

I think maybe "recreated" is a better word than "restored". It's also worth noting that volume one might have been woodblock, as "there is an inscription at the last page that the second volume of Jikji [was] printed with movable metal type."[7]

If this plate was (also) created in 2001, then it may well be in copyright.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:52 1 April 2025 (GMT). 16:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems quite farfetched to say this is a 2D work, so we may need a permission for the picture. Yann (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hand traces of photographs, take for instance File:Raspoutine et ses enfants.jpg

There are wider crops of this image available (example), and also this one pencil-drawn trace of the image (the URL in which it was found being here), at a much higher resolution. I feel the trace might be useful, were it not for the potential copyright issue. Is there enough creativity in the hand-trace to push it out of the public domain? JayCubby (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't what could have a copyright here. Yann (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsApp screenshot

Hello all,

Does WhatsApp background page is copyrightable. For example:

-- Geagea (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would fear so. That would need to be erased. Gnom (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom: I'd have said the opposite. Is there some element of that you believe is copyrightable, or are you saying the arrangement is copyrightable, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could be argued that the background design as a whole is copyrightable. Gnom (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it de minimis? The background is not the main subject of the screenshot, is not a purpose of taking it and on the first look I didn't even noticed it. ~Cybularny ^Speak? 23:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the background design takes up about half the image, so we can hardly say it's de minimis, I would say. Gnom (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see what you are referring to. I literally had not noticed the background design, I thought this was about the icons! Let me see what I can do to suppress that background. - Jmabel ! talk 18:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at my new version of File:התכתבות חן בוכריס רפאל חיון 2.jpg and see if that is acceptable? - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think changing the background with a flat color should solve the problem --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank to all. Just want to know if the background page is copyrightable. and from your answer I understand that the answer is yes. I know how to solve it. -- Geagea (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image of book cover

Hello everyone!! I need some assistance and orientation. Earlier today, I was expanding the article about Os Subterrâneos da Liberdade, a book trilogy written by the Brazilian writer Jorge Amado, in the Portuguese Wikipedia, which has a counterpart in the English site, at The Bowels of Liberty. In the English article, an image of the cover of the first volume of the trilogy is feature, and employed under fair use (thus, it has been uploaded at the English website). I would like to find out if I can use the same image (it is a cover in Brazilian Portuguese) in the Portuguese version, and, if so, under what license and tag. The image I'm referring to can be found here. Could you please advise me? I'd appreciate it very much. Thanks in advance. StoryCraftsman (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term for anonymous works in Brazil is "publish + 70 years" which seems to have passed this year. So it should be good as long as the artist isn't known. I assume the proper template would be "PD-Brazil-media." --Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason to believe the cover was published anonymously? Often the cover images of books are attributed together with the copyright information for the rest of the book (often on the back of the title page). –LPfi (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PD-Art (PD-old default)

Hi, BMacZero and I have been able to get this category from around 110,000 to 94,500 in a few days. I think that a concerted effort could get this further down to a more reasonable level. Also more knowledge of language and local laws are needed (see the first 14 files and subcategories). Great way to improve your edit count... ;o) Yann (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile we need to find ways to stop adding files here. Particularly concerning are mass uploads with an incomplete license, e.g. by BotMultichill (File:1873 Beers Map of Part of Flushing, Queens, New York City - Geographicus - Flushing7476-beers-1873.jpg). Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PD-Art (PD-old default) with "see description" author is a great place to start. These have an author string that's something like "see description" and require human intervention to fill in the author. I have a database of the whole category that I can query and I can use it to make additional helpful categories like that. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

License laundering and PD-self

What a mess.

My watchlist alerted to changes on File:Galilee to Judea.gif. The changes showed conflicting license claims that the file was both copyrighted and public domain. The file was the subject of an earlier VP/Copyright topic that determined the source file was File:First century Iudaea province.gif uploaded to the en.Wiki by Andrew c under GFDL.

Where did the PD claim from? Looking in the history shows

addition of {{PD-self}} by Buglover100000

Why did Buglover100000 add that claim? That claim apparently has its origin in a PD-self claim on the source file File:First century Iudaea province.gif:

addition of {{PD-self}} by Jenhawk777

I do not see why that claim should have been added.

Looking at Jenhawk777's contributions, turns up some edits to File:Antioch Saint Pierre Church Front.JPG, a photograph made in 2003.

license as PD-US. The file had an existing non-PD license claim.
change to PD-US-unpublished
then changed to PD-self
then removed

Perhaps we should have an edit filter that prevents newbie editors from adding PD templates to files uploaded by others when there is a non-PD license already on the page.

Glrx (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I warned Buglover100000 and Jenhawk777. Yann (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was notified of this and I am a bit alarmed, since I don't remember doing this. I have never uploaded a single image and would have no reason to use PD-self for anything. If I did this, I did so without meaning to! I'm sorry! I don't edit here much. The only time I have ever added a license was when there wasn't one for the US, and what was there seemed to support its addition. I'm glad you caught this, but I am definitely confused! Can you help me understand better what not to do in the future? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For File:Antioch Saint Pierre Church Front.JPG this is so obviously a modern photo that I can only guess you were trying to indicate the building itself is in the public domain?

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 20:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenhawk777: Please do not add bogus license(s), and please use the Sandbox for testing. Yann (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to!! I have no idea what happened! I don't understand any of this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello, that is completely in accurate. what I did was remove the original PD-self tag, since the uploader of that gif was not the creator of the image. the edit history shows this. unless i'm missing or misunderstanding something here? I am, admittedly, new and don't really edit on Commons. I only made this edit after an archived discussion about the source of that file where others found that it had originally been uploaded by someone else. Buglover100000 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wait, ok, i looked again, i am still confused, but you're right, I guess I did add the pd self? from what I remember, I just brought in the license from the original file this file was a reupload of. Buglover100000 (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to be clear, before I made the changes I made, that page falsely claimed that User:JWooldridge was the author and that JWoolridge had released it with a CC 3.0 license, which was totally false - User:Andrew c was the author and was the one who released it with that license. My edit was made in complete good faith, even if I made a mistake. Buglover100000 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that my other comments here essentially restate what you said in your original comment. To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why you didn't make this change yourself when you helped me find this information in that discussion a month ago, especially since you don't seem to trust "newbies" with editing license information. I saw an inaccurate licensing claim that had been unchallenged for 15 years and my goal was to fix it to make Wikipedia better, and now I'm receiving a vandalism warning for it. You guys are also not being particularly helpful to Jenhawk777 who seems just as lost as I was when I got this notification originally. Forgive me if I find all this a little frustrating. I am definitely going to stick to Wikipedia and avoid Commons going forward. Not going to risk being WP:BOLD here. Buglover100000 (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice the license issue until today, and it took some effort to unwind. You were misled, so your edits were not vandalism. I also doubt that Jenhawk777's edits were vandalism even though they were faulty. My interest is elsewhere. Glrx (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to step on anyone. I can see how Buglover100000 was mislead. Instead, I'm wondering about avoiding mistakes such as these in the future. It does not seem right that anyone can add a PD tag to a file that already has a non-PD tag. (I can see sophisticated editors replacing a non-PD tag with something such as {{PD-textlogo}}.) It also seems that only the uploader should add {{PD-self}} because that is nominally the choice of the author/uploader. That may also be true for any CC license. I'm looking for more reliable license tags: if a page has a personal license grant such as {{PD-self}}, then it would be nice to know that the uploader (or a trusted editor) put it there. Glrx (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's real, and makes sense. It would be nice for there to be a filter to avoid whatever happened to me and Jenhawk777 happening again in the future, I completely agree. Buglover100000 (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Glrx Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt instead of jumping to the worst conclusion first. I appreciate that. I will make sure this doesn't happen again by never editing any media again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean copyright law: "integrity"

Hello there. I was just revamping a little the Chilean public domain copyright tag in order to make it more clear that authorship must always be acknowledged, despite the work being in the public domain. However, one part of the law seems a little troublesome. Article 11 states that "Las obras del patrimonio cultural común podrán ser utilizadas por cualquiera, siempre que se respete la paternidad y la integridad de la obra" (Public domain works may be used by anyone, as long as the paternity [authorship] and integrity of the work are respected). Previously, in the article 1, it states that copyright comprises patrimonial and moral rights, protecting (among other rights) the integrity of the work.

The concept of "integrity" refers to the moral right of the author to ensure that their work is not modified, distorted, mutilated, or altered in a way that could harm their honor or reputation. This right protects the work’s original essence and the author's vision, even when the work becomes part of the common cultural heritage (public domain). Therefore, even if a work belongs to the common cultural heritage (public domain) (e.g., after the expiration of copyright or the author’s renunciation), it must still respect the authorship and integrity of the original creator. Unlike in some other countries where public domain works can be freely modified (like under U.S. law or CC0 licenses), in Chile, moral rights — especially integrity — remain in force.

The moral rights title, which includes article 14, states that the author (and per articles 15 and 16, its inheritors, as it is perpetual) could eventually oppose any modification, deformation or mutilation of the work "without express and previous consent", meaning these works are never actually in the public domain as it is known and understood in the United States.

As a result, modifying Chilean public domain works could be troublesome, at least within the country. I could not find jurisprudence but it's not like there is much controversy regarding copyright in courts. Bedivere (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: @Racconish: From what I remember, France also has moral rights that never expire. Abzeronow (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

France is not an exception. See Moral rights. — Racconish ^💬 08:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are fairly common terms of moral rights -- not particularly special to Chile I don't think. I think any alterations need to be labeled, so a viewer knows they did not come from the named author. In other words moral rights more protects the misrepresentation of a change to an original author -- not sure it comes anywhere near being like being able to prevent a derivative work. The key part is that it should be limited to acts which "could harm their honor or reputation". This is in line with the Berne Convention, article 6bis, paragraph 1: Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. I'm not sure that making a derivative work where it's clear that modifications were made by someone else could do that. Basically, this type of limitation exists pretty much in any Berne country. (The U.S. does not have explicit moral rights, though likely claim their general misrepresentation laws cover it enough.) The wording is often conflated with the terminology of derivative works, and has led to far too many deletions, in my opinion. These limitations generally exist no matter what the copyright license says -- they are still "free". Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

question about "victory animation" from old versions of Solitaire (Windows)

Could it be OK to upload a screenshot of the well-known bouncing cards animation from the older versions of Microsoft Solitaire? I mean to crop the screenshot just to show the green background filled with the bouncing cards only (most likely with lower values as their design is quite simple), so no menus, no status bar, etc. I've asked a similar question on English Wikipedia a few days ago but so far nobody answered there Miko101 (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think no- the game, and any images derived from it would be under copyright. The bouncing card is too complex, plus it was an original idea, so it would not fall under any exceptions. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so now I know that I can't make directly a screenshot and upload it here. But how about making a photo of a computer running Solitaire, just like an example of 386 running German-language Windows for Workgroups 3.1 with loaded Program Manager ? Miko101 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing for the purpose of copyright. I'm 95% sure this image also fails copyright, so I nommed it for deletion. Solitaire definitely will, as Windows Solitaire is very distinct looking, therefore way more original/creative than plain icons. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open source journal question

Are the images contained within an open source journal considered to be under the same license as the journal article itself? The images appear to be otherwise unpublished, given to the authors of the article by a family member of the deceased subject. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The images do not necessarily need to match the same license as the journal- there must be something written somewhere about what the conditions for use are. From what you have written, it might be that the permission was only given to the journal to use it, and not for reproduction of it elsewhere, or perhaps use not allowed for commercial reasons. But needs more info to find that out. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. I will see if I can find more information about the images. ThaesOfereode (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it might help, image info is usually underneath the photos, or at the end of the publication/at the end of each individual piece/article in the publication. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regional libraries and museums

I'm very active in editing pages that have to do with Nevada, specifically southern Nevada (which includes Las Vegas). However, there are a distinct lack of public domain imagery that is not from the War Office Administration specifically during WWII. However, the UNLV Library has an extensive digitized collection of historic photos in similarly high resolution to the LOC. However, most of it says "copyright not evaluated." Much of what the collection has was donated to do them by prominent families who donated their family photos. Almost none of the photographs have attribution other than that it comes from a collection, and there is no information about whether or not has been published before. In terms of the Hirtle Chart? What do I do?? Any help would be appreciated. TheYearbookTeacher (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a good start would be to know the year in which the photo was taken. Gnom (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These can be rather difficult, due to ambiguities in older U.S. copyright law. The date a photo was taken might matter. The date they were donated to the library, most likely does matter, as do the terms of that donation. Basically, for the U.S. before 1978, the length of copyright depended greatly on the date of publication, not creation. Most works were published soon after creation, but family photos probably were not. There are further ambiguities on what constitutes publication before 1978 -- was the donation itself effectively publication, meaning copyright notices had to be present if that donation happened before 1978, or does the library itself claim continued copyright ownership, and only publication when they made them available online? The most common old definition was when actual copies were distributed beyond a limited set of people, or beyond a limited use, or when there were rights to distribute further -- but that could be subtly different between judicial circuits. If the donation happened 1978 or later, the terms of the donation would have to explicitly assign copyright or the family still owns it, and the copyright term would be at least 70pma if the photographer is known.

If publication was earlier than 1989, the copyright notice question could apply, but not after that. So unfortunately, everything really depends on identifying a date of publication, then checking the Hirtle chart from there. But that is not always easy, and if the Library will try to claim rights in order to sell reproductions, even if nebulous, that can be an additional complication, though from their terms they seem to be adhering to copyright law -- but putting the onus on the end user to guess at its status, as they pretty much state they are claiming fair use of any still-copyrighted materials that they do not own the copyright to.

If photos were taken more than 120 years ago and no author is identified, you could use {{PD-old-assumed}}. Other than that, I'm not sure we can assume publication at any time before donation to the library. From a practical perspective, it's highly highly unlikely that any materials donated before 1964 got renewed, so if we can assume at least that as a publication date, those may be OK. From 1964 through 1988, we could maybe claim "no notice", but that is getting dodgier. If publication only happened when these were digitized, then not sure we can claim any of that. From 1989 through 2002, there is an additional complication that if that counts as the publication date, then the works will not expire before 2048 no matter what, if they were created before 1978. Anything donated since 2003 is almost certainly still under copyright, unless taken more than 120 years ago, or the author died more than 70 years ago. If they have marked something "public domain", I'd say it's OK, since they seem to be pretty careful about copyright. But anything marked "not evaluated" you'd have to take into account the above, unfortunately. The most difficult is determining a date of publication. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about the photographer. I assume many photos in family albums are taken by their friends, who weren't among the donators. For those photos, any publication would not have been lawful, would it? I assume a fair use publication would not invalidate the authors' copyrights. –LPfi (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protests on posted signs containing copyrighted images

I'm most often active on enwiki and image copyright questions always seem to confuse me; apologies if this question has an obvious answer. I was recently at the Stonewall National Monument in NYC and took some pictures of postings on signs that the NPS has put up (example of one of these signs here). People have taped up signs, foam lettering, flowers, etc. on some of these signs as a protest of the removal of references to transgender people from the Monument's website. I understand that the images are themselves under copyright and do not fall under FoP in the US, despite being permanently posted. Would the photos I've taken be uploadable under the idea that the photos are of the protests, and that the images printed on the signs are de minimis in the broader context of the postings on the signs? AviationFreak (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPS link not working. Says that's temporary, but I'm not placing any bets these days. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak: There's no way to judge whether something is de minimis without seeing it. I'd suggest uploading a typical example so we have something to discuss. The worst that happens is that it gets deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 22:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I pasted twice when putting the link in it seems. Should be fixed now. One of the images is here - is this a likely copyvio? AviationFreak (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would not come under de minimis, nor would any similar image. Every image is judged individually-de minimis (and everything related to copyright) applies separately, and not in a "broader context". Image is very much a copyvio- I have tagged it for deletion. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by LGNSCOMMS

Good day. I'm currently working on a good article review at English Wikipedia for Order of Nova Scotia, and the issue of the images came up. I believe that images of Canadian medals are okay, but in this specific case because these images were prepared by the Lieutenant Governor's office they may be under Crown copyright and they may not have had the authority to release them. The files in question are File:Chancellor's Chain of the Order of Nova Scotia.jpg and File:Order of Nova Scotia Insignia on a bow.jpg, but I imagine that whatever decision made would apply to all of their uploads. I would really appreciate it if someone more familiar with copyright could weigh in on this. MediaKyle (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably going to need VRT resolution, but I'm not very knowledgeable about crown copyright, let alone Canadian crown copyright. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 22:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other participants in this discussion should also consider Commons:Deletion requests/File:NS Platinum Jubilee Medal (back).jpg (another image of a government-issued medal by the same uploader, closed as delete) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:125th Anniversary of Confederation Medal.jpg (another image of a Canadian medal by a different uploader, closed as delete).

I don't think the description of the issue above "because these images were prepared by the Lieutenant Governor's office" is accurate. The issue is not the copyright for the preparation of the images themselves, which appears to have been properly released by the uploader. It is the copyright for the objects depicted in the images, which I would assume (like Canadian coins and stamps) fall under Crown copyright; see Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Canada#Currency. David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medals aren't currency, though. Based on the description of the chain, I would assume both the insignia and the chain were produced by "Pressed Metal Products of British Columbia" and not the Royal Canadian Mint. I was unable to find who created the insignia of the Order of Canada. Maybe this does need VRT resolution, because I feel like a lot of this is based on speculation. MediaKyle (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, at File:Chancellor's_Chain_of_the_Order_of_Nova_Scotia.jpg, it states the medal was made by "Pressed Metal Products of British Columbia". They were a private company, who appeared to have made other medals, insignia and jewelry, notably the Order of Canada (at some point). This company was acquired in 2017 and is now under the control of Rideau Recognition. I believe this is the company that makes all the 'Order Of' medals in the country. The crown copyright would ultimately lie with the Office of LGNS/Crown, as they would have commissioned and designed the medal. Crown copyright extends not just to works created by the government, but ALSO under the control of the government, as per Section 12 of the Copyright Act. This would be in line what was established with the Keatley Surveying Ltd. v. Teranet Inc. Supreme Court case. Hence, the images are okay as the were freely licensed by the Office themselves. Should still seek out VRT permissions, but deleting the files is a bit extreme IMO. PascalHD (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images uploaded by User:Sailor Puck

This user recently uploaded a lot of NFL game programs under CC, among other images, that all appear to by copyvios. Can someone with more experience take a look: Special:ListFiles/Sailor Puck. Thank you! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

en:2001 California's 32nd congressional district special election

In this article, election returns from the website Our Campaigns have been used. I would assume this means that the material is freely licensed.

However, in the article there is a photo of the winner, Diane Watson, but none of her main opponent, Noel Irwin Hentschel. There is a photo of Ms. Hentschel on the same Our Campaigns page as the election results. Does Wikipedia's use of the election results on that page mean that the photo also is freely licensed? It seems odd not to have photos of both major candidates. Rontrigger (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Election returns are not creative, and thus are not copyrighted. Photographs are creative works and thus are copyrighted. If Hentschel is notable enough to be in scope and if there is a explicitly freely licensed photograph available of her, then one could be added. Abzeronow (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rontrigger, there are photos of her available in Commons, see Category:Noel Irwin Hentschel. Although the photos are not from 2001, it might still be useful to add a picture of her. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a theatrical picture, though. Her photo in Our Campaigns is professionally done.

I have tried to sign in to Our Campaigns; they claimed to have E-mailed me a temporary password but I didn't receive it. In any case, the site is notoriously difficult to navigate and it's unlikely I'd be able to contact someone who can tell me if Hentschel's photo is freely licensed. Rontrigger (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ObsLogo

Template {{ObsLogo}} is a new license template created by User:Adren~frwiki. To me this template does not seem to meet the requirements of COM:LIC, so I filed Commons:Deletion requests/Template:ObsLogo. Please participate in the discussion - there. Jarekt (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurar el logo del Movimiento Al Socialismo (Venezuela)

Buenas por favor agrega la Categoría:Undeleted in 2031 a este logo (File:MAS.svg) removido por Yann ,este logo estará al Dominio Público en Venezuela (60 años según {{PD-Venezuela}}) AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 2031 yet, Commons doesn't need to do this pre-emptively. Ask in 2031 perhaps? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes AbchyZa22 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[8]. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not checking that it existed. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Movie trailer (Bedtime For Bonzo)

Hello, recently user @Mellydoll replaced {{PD-US-no notice}} on File:Bedtime For Bonzo trailer.webm with "While it is fine to use an image from this film for educational and other Fair Use purposes, his work is not in the public domain. Please see Catalog of Copyright Entries, Third Series. Parts 12-13: Motion Pictures and Filmstrips Jan-Dec 1951: Vol 5 No 1-2, page 3." It does definitely seem that there was a copyright registration and renewal, but is it for the film only or cover the trailer? $999$ REAL 💬 ⬆ 18:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The trailer has no visible copyright notice. Bedivere (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1970s Soviet performances of national anthems.

I basically want to check on this before I nominate a file that has been on Commons for nearly 20 years for deletion. File:Gimn Sovetskogo Soyuza (1977 Vocal).oga is from a 1977 performance of the 1977 version of the Soviet national anthem. The anthem composition would be free from copyright since it is a state symbol. The performance was done by the choir and orchestra of the Bolshoi Theatre and conducted by Yuri Simonov (b. 1941). The source is this recording is the CD “National Anthems of the USSR and Union Republics” https://web.archive.org/web/20160325163946/http://www.hymn.ru/15-union-republics/index-en.html which had a copyright notice of "©1996 Melodiya."

What I basically want to know is if I'm missing some facet of this that would make the Bolshoi Theatre performance free from copyright? Abzeronow (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alex Spade might know ... --Rosenzweig τ 19:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have planned to make additional PD-Russia-audio template in near future for many similar cases of audiorecords.

The Russian copyright legislation have two branches - the copyright itself (works of arts, literature, and science - chapter 70 of the Civil Code) and the neighbouring rights (rights for performance, audiorecordings, and some others things - chapter 71 of the Civil Code). The rights for performance (for audiorecording) and audiorecording in the US legislation is part of copyright legislation - so, chapter 71 could not be ignored for Commons (as Commons ignores other rights - museum rights, rights for broadcasting of sport events, etc.).

Audiorecording is in PD in Russia, if all next three conditions are fulfilled

The original work for performance and audiorecording is in PD, or it is not the subject of copyright, or it is not the result of human creative activity.
The performer(s) is/are died and it is passed 50(*) years from performance - in this sentence only human can be performer (* - 54 for performer, who worked during the Great Patriotic War or participated in it).
It is passed 50 years from audiorecording - in this sentence any recorded sound is the subject of neighbouring rights - including both sounds of nature (birds, rain/thunder, etc.) and artificial sounds (music, song, speech, foley sounds, sounds from streets, building sites, sports events). Alex Spade (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, this record is not in PD in Russia. Alex Spade (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of poster board in photo

This photo by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) incorporates a poster board which most likely has its own copyright. However, I imagine that the NRC got a media release from the student or their parent/guardian allowing them to make derivative works, which could have resulted in the poster's contents being sublicensed under CC BY 2.0. Otherwise, the photo may have to be marked as {{De minimis}}. Qzekrom (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis will be fine. Bedivere (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Book from 1970

Hello, this Thai book about Krabi–krabong was published on the cremation of the author on 21 January 1970. In Thailand copyright is life of the author + 50 years. So it has been 55 years, it should be okay with PD-Thailand. Artanisen (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be in the public domain in Thailand, but then again, for uploading here it should also comply with US public domain rules. I don't think this one is expired yet in the US. Bedivere (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it does not have to comply with the US too though. There are many images with PD-Thailand on Wiki Commons. The photo on the cover is from circa 1940. - Artanisen (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COM:L says "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free images on the internet

Can I upload free images from the internet to Wikipedia? Kikikiki.aka (talk) 04:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kikikiki.aka no, technically many Internet images are "not free" for hosting here on Wikimedia Commons. Read Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses: content that is licensed only for non-commercial or restricted uses, like in the majority of the images on the Internet, are not allowed here. Of course, there are some images that are under free licensing that can be imported here, like a couple of images from Flickr and most images in several US government sites, which are PD by default (exempli gratia, {{PD-USGov}} images).

You can locally upload unfree Internet images on English Wikipedia, though, but you must fully understand w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content house rules there. Fair use images on that Wikimedia website must satisfy all factors under w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy.

Anyway, what website on the Internet are you referring to? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Here is the image on this page.[9] Kikikiki.aka (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kikikiki.aka: The website states that the images may only used in a way that reflexts a positive image of Fuji City. That makes these images non-free under our definition. Gnom (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use this image?[10] Kikikiki.aka (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom: not only that. Their copyright statement page states their content can only be used in accordance with the Japanese copyright law (personal use and quotation only). They also state (translated), "It is prohibited to use, reproduce, reprint, sell, modify, print or distribute documents and images posted on this website without the permission of Fuji City."

@Kikikiki.aka: uploading on Wikimedia Commons, no. Not only is commercial use prohibited, but also distribution of the images elsewhere. On English Wikipedia, likely no. The majority of the subjects in the images are also available here (like Mount Fuji and its surrounding sceneries). Assuming you contribute to Japanese Wikipedia, I don't know how that Wikimedia site treats fair use images or regulates usages of unfree images. For personal (non-Wikimedia) use, you can. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm you seem to refer to the image on the Japanese stock image site. Claimed usage description (translation): "This 'Free photo material of Mt. Fuji seen from Lake Kawaguchi' can be used by both individuals and corporations. Please use it for creative purposes such as website production, video editing, and printed materials. Commercial use is OK, no credit notation or usage report is required. Processing and tracing are also free. Please select the size from the following and click the download button." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kikikiki.aka while initially OK on surface, there is one red flag. AS per the usage terms of the stock image site, it is not allowed to use the images in "Paid sale of products where the photo from this site is the main component (such as postcards, puzzles, t-shirts, or phone cases with just the photo). Even with minor modifications, this is prohibited." Commons requires content to be licensed even in media like post cards, and this single restriction makes images on that website

Not OK here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Works by Odisha Govt

Hello everyone. This concerns Template:GoO-donation under COM:TAG India. This template was used for works by govt of Odisha which are allowed here. In the list of accounts we have Naveen Patnaik's accounts. He was Chief Minister then but isn't now. So shall we remove his personal accounts and add new CM's account in place. Bcoz since he no longer is part of govt, his uploads can't be considered as Odisha Govt works. Please take care of this situation. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Kafka and Klaus Wagenbach

Since 1951 Klaus Wagenbach collected photographs of Franz Kafka and everything that involves Kafka according to the website of the archive.
In Germany in 1983 Klaus Wagenbach published Franz Kafka: Bilder aus seinem Leben and in 1984 it was published in the United States as Franz Kafka: pictures of a life. It is a book with many photographs of Franz Kafka and his life, with many of these photographs being part of Klaus Wagenbach's collection. In the book there is no credit to the people who took the photographs, only to the archives that provided the images. (see credits page)
Assuming Klaus Wagenbach hasn't contacted the photographers to talk about copyright (which is likely, considering there's hundreds of images), is there any way he could have the rights (in Germany or anywhere else) to publish these photographs because he owned the physical photographs? Kafkafan55 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kafkafan55: Copyright generally doesn't transfer with the physical ownership of photographs, copyright transfer is a separate matter. @Rosenzweig: @Gnom: another wrinkle with German copyright is that for pre-1995 works, if the author of a work was ever known, the work cannot be considered anonymous. Abzeronow (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would German copyright law apply here? Kafka was Austrian-Czech. And all photos were taken in 1924 at the latest. Nakonana (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The original photographs if made public before 1924 would probably fall under Austrian or Czech copyright depending on where the photographs were first made public. Kafkafan essentially asked a question about German copyright though since Wagenbach had published the book in Germany in 1983. Abzeronow (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also confused about something else. Commons:Publication basically says that publication is "distribution of copies to the general public with the consent of the author". So, for example, if a photograph was taken before 1925 by a family member of Kafka and kept private in the family's collection, is that considered "not published"? If it was only made available to the public in Klaus Wagenbach's Franz Kafka: Bilder aus seinem Leben, is the publication date 1983? But what if Klaus Wagenbach did not ask for consent to the photographer (since there is no credit to any photographer)? Kafkafan55 (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1983/84 was before the 1993 EU copyright directive, before the US joined the Berne Convention and also before the US passed the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). A lot of those pre-1925 photographs might have been in the public domain in those years in both Germany (copyright had expired – because of shorter term durations for photographs – and wasn't revived until the mid-1990s) as well as the US (the URAA which restored the US copyrights did not exist yet). --Rosenzweig τ 18:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tvh_komplett_ohne_rand-tshirt_weiss.png

Bringen die modifizierten Buchstaben (T und V) das ansonsten simple Vereinslogo über die Schöpfungshöhe? Oder reicht das noch nicht? Meine persönliche Meinung ist: Keine Schöpfungshöhe. Aber liege ich damit richtig? GerritR (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M. E. keine Schöpfungshöhe in Deutschland und auch below the threshold of originality in den USA (COM:TOO USA). --Rosenzweig τ 19:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]