Jump to content

Commons:Village pump/Copyright

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ 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.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
Please note
  1. 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.
  2. Have you read the FAQ?
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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.


Sede de Cervecería Polar (1941)

[edit]

Buenas se puede publicar a Wikimedia la sede de Cervecería Polar como esta imagen en 1941 para agregar {{PD-Venezuela}} (60 años) ósea en Venezuela estará al Dominio Público en 1965 o antes? AbchyZa22 (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, AbchyZa22. Los 60 años empiezan desde la fecha de publicación, no de creación. No es claro cuándo se publicó la imagen. Es decir, si no se publicó antes de 1965, creo que no está en el dominio público en Venezuela.
La imagen también debe estar en el dominio público en los Estados Unidos (donde están localizados los servidores de Wikimedia Commons). Creo que los derechos de autor en los EE.UU. permanecen por 95 años desde la publicación, según la URAA/LARU. (En detalle: La URAA restaura los derechos de autor en los EE.UU. si la imagen estuvo protegida en el país de origen en la fecha de restauración [1 de enero de 1996 para la mayoría de países, incluso COM:Venezuela. Aunque se publicara la imagen en 1941, los derechos de author todavía no vencerían en 1996, entonces los derechos de autor son restaurados en los EE.UU.)
Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 03:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anon126:Abajo de la imagen aparece 1941 como fecha de publicación. AbchyZa22 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AbchyZa22: Bueno, pero como lo dije antes, creo que la imagen aún no estaría en el dominio público en los EE.UU. La política sobre material en el dominio público requiere que la imagen esté en el dominio público tanto en los EE.UU. como en el país de origen. Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anon126:Buenas,no todos los logos pasaron al Dominio Público en EE.UU. pero existe logos que ya pasó al Dominio Público en Venezuela no en EEUU por ejemplo (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg) AbchyZa22 (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments : Unicode licensed data

[edit]

Hello all, Unicode has interesting multilingual data under a new Unicode licence approved by the Open Source Initiative. This Unicode license states :

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of data files and any associated documentation (the “Data Files”) or software and any associated documentation (the “Software”) to deal in the Data Files or Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, and/or sell copies of the Data Files or Software, and to permit persons to whom the Data Files or Software are furnished to do so, provided that either (a) this copyright and permission notice appear with all copies of the Data Files or Software, or (b) this copyright and permission notice appear in associated Documentation.

We (Lingua Libre/Commons contributors supported by Wikimedia France) would like to import such data on Commons in order to feed Wikimedia tool Lingua Libre. But I'm not jurist. I put in bold the points which seems the most relevant to us : the widely open sharing conditions similar to CC licenses (first bold section) and the second bold section requiring to display their UNICODE license with the data.

Therefor, from my non-jurist understanding maybe adding the UNICODE license text at the end of the Wikipage would be enough to respect both the source's UNICODE license and the host's Commons CC-BY-SA license ? What do you think ? Comments and thoughs welcomes. Yug (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that appears to be a free license; it satisfies all the conditions set out in Commons:Licensing. Which Unicode data are you referring to in particular? Omphalographer (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for your answer Omphalographer. The Unilex project. It provides lists of words like this one which we use to record audio files for Commons and Wiktionaries as in Category:Lingua_Libre_pronunciation-eus.
Wikimedia France is funding a code revamp and we want to move our open lienced lists to Commons so they stays editable in a crowdsourced wiki way. Yug (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Law for Text-to-Speech

[edit]

Hello, People with visual impairments face many challenges accessing Wikipedia articles. In most cases, the audio version of the articles is not available. With the advent of AI tools capable of transforming text into voice (such as ElevenLabs), I think it would be a good idea to conduct a test, starting with high-quality articles and featured articles. Here’s an example from the lead section of the article (in French) on Elizabeth Willing Powel (using ElevenLabs). However, I am unsure about the copyright implications regarding these generated audio files. Does anyone have information on this issue of usage rights? Thank you. Riad Salih (talk) 23:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They should be whatever the copyright of the original text is. Automated transformation does not add any copyrightable expression, and in this case sounds like it would pretty much contain all of the expression from the source work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Riad Salih,
ElevenLab and jurisprudence are clear that ML generated transformations are Public Domain. The text being from wikipedia, the audio would be CC-BY-SA as per Wikipedia's license.
An user group interested by this avenue ML speech synthesis is gathering at meta:Wikimedia_machine_learning_text-to-speech_group. Yug (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Should files with restored copyright by the URAA speedied as copyvios? 2A02:A31B:20DD:6F80:4425:79F0:ED98:FDAA 12:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to have regular deletion discussions IMO, to give room for debate and time to check the several factors there are to be considered when it comes to URAA. --Rosenzweig τ 13:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on images from European Parliament (EP)

[edit]

Hello, I wanted to ask whether images from European Parliament (EP) is allowed here in Commons. In the copyright notice [1] on their website, it states:

  • it “authorized…commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged.” Clearly it allows for commercial use, but does the pharse “entire item is reproduced” means their images are non-derivative?

I am asking because me and another user (pinging @PascalHD) were in a discussion whether this portrait of Mark Carney is allowed in Commons since the EXIF data credited EP as the source. PascalHD mentioned that it is allowed by law, but I was confused because in a previous DR, images that were also credited to EP in the EXIF data were deleted. So should these images be undeleted if they are freely licensed by law? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the law itself does not restrict non-derivatives, only the disclaimer- I think the license is fine as you can't make a copyright more strict later. I also think the images should be undeleted. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I linked the wrong EU law, that one was for the EU Commision. However, I found the law specifically for the EU Parliament - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/1024/oj/eng. The law is in line with the Commons. Perhaps the template should be updated or a new one should be created specifically for the works of EU Parliament. PascalHD (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also add that if you read the Copyright notice for any other language than English (Italian for example;[2]) it states: "...for which the European Union holds rights of use is authorised for personal use or for commercial or non-commercial rebroadcasting, provided that the integrity of the reproduced elements is respected and the source is acknowledged...". My guess is that the English Copyright statement is a mis-translation of this. PascalHD (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"provided that the integrity of the reproduced elements is respected" and "provided that the entire item is reproduced" both sound roughly similar, and both seem to be putting limits on changes and derivatives. Is there a European law which states that a "© European Union 2020 - Source : EP" photo is considered free by our definition? Consigned (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is the english translation of no longer human in the public domain?

[edit]

see this copyright renewal entry. COM:US says copyright needs to be renewed in 28 years. the renewal was after 28 years and 3 months. is it still copyrighted? ltbdl (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the [actual law] and it says copyright expires after one year if the request is not made in the first 28 years. As this has a renewal entry, I believe they probably filed it before the end of the 28th year and were thus allowed to keep copyright (the three months was probably bcs it took time for the application to be approved). DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
darn! thanks. ltbdl (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi all

I'm hoping this may have been discussed before. Can anyone tell me what laws would apply to freedom of panorama for photos taken on land which has a diplomatic purpose? My understanding is these places are not subject to the host country's laws. The example I have is a current deletion discussion for UN building taken from within the UN compound in France. France does not have freedom of panorama however my understanding is that the UN building isn't in France and French law does not apply.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following research into the legal framework, it appears that French copyright law applies to photographs taken within the UNESCO compound in Paris, including restrictions related to freedom of panorama. Although the compound serves a diplomatic function, it is not extraterritorial in the sense of being outside the host country's legal jurisdiction. This is similar to embassies, which (contrary to popular belief) remain the sovereign territory of the host country. The laws of that country continue to apply, with exceptions limited to those explicitly granted under diplomatic treaties, such as diplomatic immunity for accredited personnel.
The 1954 Headquarters Agreement between France and UNESCO (Art. 5, para. 3) confirms this by stating that "the laws and regulations of the French Republic shall apply at Headquarters", except where overridden by UNESCO's internal regulations, which do not appear to address copyright. Accordingly, France's lack of FOP for modern architecture applies, even within the UN compound.
This reinforces the fact that the building is still under copyright (last architect Bernard Zehrfuss died in 1996, copyright expires 2066), and since FOP is not permitted in France for modern buildings under COM:FOP France, therefore, photos taken from within the UNESCO grounds are not freely usable on Commons without permission from the copyright holder.
While some users have drawn analogies to embassies or diplomatic zones, diplomatic status does not negate the applicability of copyright law. I can't find any legal or treaty-based exemption that would override the host country's copyright framework in such cases. The precautionary principle supports deletion in light of this legal uncertainty. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand of previous discussions on this, extraterritoriality doesn't apply to copyright so these UN buildings are subject to French copyright laws. (Jonatan basically ninjaed me here, thanks for laying out why French law applies) Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your reply, do I understand correctly?
  1. That French copyright law applies to UNESCO HQ in this specific example.
  2. That the laws which apply to embassies, UN compounds etc are agreed by country, rather than a blanket worldwide rule we can apply to all embassies or UN buildings etc. In this example I would assume there is this agreement with UNESCO but also a separate law governing embassies in France.
Is this correct?
Thanks again
. John Cummings (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your understanding is correct on both points:
  1. French copyright law applies to the UNESCO headquarters. The 1954 Headquarters Agreement states that French law governs the site unless overridden by UNESCO's internal regulations, which do not address copyright, so France's lack of freedom of panorama applies.
  2. You're absolutely right that the legal status of embassies, UN compounds, and similar diplomatic premises is determined by specific agreements with the host country, not by a blanket rule. These places are often misunderstood as being "foreign soil" or fully outside the legal reach of the host country, but in reality, they remain part of the host country’s territory. The key distinction is that they benefit from certain immunities and privileges, which are granted through treaties or headquarters agreements.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, thanks so much, I'll think about how best to include this information into copyright guidance pages. John Cummings (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello

I wanted to ask if it would be possible to upload pictures of Erika Szeles and Roza Shanina.

There are some of Shanina under Category:Roza Shanina, but my favorite picture of her is missing. The image (I love her smile in this photo). Author is unknown, unless one of you knows more. Would it be possible to upload it here using Template:PD-Russia-1996?

There are no images of Erika Szeles on Commons, but her photos went around the world in 1956. Image 1, Image 2, Image 3 (on the front page of a Danish weekly magazine). They were made 1956 by the Danish photographer Vagn Hansen. Unfortunately, there is no further information about the photographer here, including whether he is still alive or when he died. Would it be possible to upload it here using Template:PD-Denmark50?

Greetings, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 08:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A colored version of one of the photos of Szeles is on Ru Wiki[6], but it's marked as a copyrighted, non-free image.
Maybe you could upload a local version on the wiki where you want to use the photo instead of uploading it to Commons? Nakonana (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again.
@Alex Spade: Thank you for your detailed information. It's a shame that nothing more specific can be found about Shanina's photo. Regarding Szeles, the question remains how exactly one interprets the description "Note that "photographic works", which must display artistic merit or originality, enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the photographer...". Personally, I do consider these photos to be original. Any other opinions?
@Nakonana: I know the colorized version from Szeles, and there are also colorized versions of Shanina's image, but they are derivative works. I didn't want to upload it for a specific wiki, but rather so that all language versions can benefit from it. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 05:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I do consider these photos to be original. Russia's threshold of originality is very low, so there's a high chance that the photo would be deemed original by a Russian court, too, and thus would qualify for copyright protection as outlined by the law. We would need to know who the photographer is and when they died to determine whether 70 years have passed since their death for the copyright protection to have expired. Without this information, we must assume that it's still protected per the precautionary principle. Nakonana (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hohen Sprenz Kirche Grabplatte Drieberg

[edit]

Wenn das Foto um 1980 aufgenommen wurde, ist leider anzunehmen, dass die unbekannte verstorbene Person, die als Urheber angeführt ist, noch das Copyright hat. Oder irre ich mich? GerritR (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wenn der/die Uploadende das Foto der Bekannten geerbt haben sollte, dann würde die Person u.U. die nötigen Rechte haben, um das Foto unter einer CC Lizenz zu veröffentlichen. Zum Beispiel mit der Lizenz {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. Nakonana (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PD status of image of Rosa Parks

[edit]

Hello! I am currently working on updating the Wikipedia page on Rosa Parks to FA status. It has been brought to my attention in Peer Review that the public domain status of this image is potentially questionable. Per the reviewer:

File:Rosaparks.jpg needs better documentation of its PD status. I searched archive.gov for "306-PSD-65-1882" and couldn't find anything. The fact that it is marked "unknown author" casts doubt on the claim; typically US Government photos come with extensive documentation including the name of the photographer.

I also found a discussion about the status of the image here, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to shed much light on the topic. If anyone could help clarify or help find more information on this image's status, that would be great. Thank you! Spookyaki (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: several images, including this one, this one, and this one seem to be marked as "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties", but the reviewer has pointed out that it seems as if they were prepared by municipal employees, not federal employees. However, the use of these images is marked as "unrestricted" on NARA, and it seems like they were maybe included in a report as part of a federal court care. What would be an appropriate tag for these images? Spookyaki (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly doubtful those paper forms are protected by copyright in the first place -- it's just factual information at most, and "blank forms" are listed as one of the types of works not protected by copyright, so there is no issue on the form either. If there was a copyright, it would be PD by now as either no-notice or not renewed. Those I would not worry about. The photo of Parks, another matter entirely. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a relevant licensing template that could be used for these images then? Spookyaki (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This image is probably {{PD-US}} for publication without a copyright notice, or failing to renew the copyright 28 years after publication. Please note that the original link doesn't work, but the image is available from [7].
I don't think this is from the US government. There is a mention of the Ebony magazine. Copyright notice and renewal should be checked for that magazine. Yann (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, verifying U.S. federal government origin of images related to the civil rights struggle has just become tremendously more complicated because of the Trump administration's purge of many such materials from public display, including on line. - Jmabel ! talk 17:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That said, it is a very unlikely image to have been taken by a government photographer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see a copy on NARA here with a note that The copyright for this image is held by Ebony Magazine, and it's listed as "Fully Restricted". So looks like USIA took that from a magazine. It looks like all 1955 issues of that magazine were renewed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see... Maybe outside your jurisdiction, but on the Wikipedia side, do you think it could be used in Rosa's article under fair use? There are maybe other pictures that could be used of her in that space, but none that are as clear, as close to the Montgomery bus boycott, and as demonstrative of her connection to the Civil rights movement. I also think it's unlikely that its use would limit that original issue of Ebony's commercial commercial sales. Overall, I just think it'd be a shame to see it go (though obviously it couldn't be used as the FA image). Spookyaki (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Carl. Too bad, so I created Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Rosa Parks in 1955. Yann (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I wish to use a family photo of my great great grandparents taken well before 1875 as one of the subjects died that year. Photographer unknown but the photo has been in the family ever since. see here en:Boyup Brook, Western Australia. How do I acknowledge the photo. Petermw2 (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to your description, you can use any of our license templates (to claim any Publication rights). Otherwise, {{Pd-old-assumed}} is a valid choice. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snippet video of live concert performance

[edit]

I wrote a featured article about a song some time ago. I'd like to upload a short video I took myself showing it being played as the encore of the group's 2025 world tour, to add to the 'live performances' section of the article. The video consists of about 25 seconds of the song being introduced as the final song, and then about 20 seconds of the song itself, basically just enough for it to be fully recognisable. It there any copyright restriction on uploading a short live-recording of a song that is obviously copyrighted? Obviously the audio quality in the crowd could never compete with the actual audio, and I deliberately only uploaded a portion of the song significantly less than 10% of the full-length. Can this theoretically be uploaded on a Creative Commons licence with myself being the author? And if not, could I upload it under non-free FUR? Thanks. I've never tried to upload video of anything before. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Wikipedia. I thought someone here might just happen to know the answer. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having poor quality audio and video does not give one a pass on copyrights. Even the first half of the video would have a copyright — not just the music and lyrics. So do not upload any part of the video. You have a derivative copyright on your video, but you need a free license from the performers. Glrx (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I appreciate it. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Damien Linnane should ask on Wikipedia first but I wonder if it could be uploaded there under fair use since it's going to be used in an article. I have no clue what their policy is for music or videos, but this would be an acceptable use case if it was an image. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do that. FYI, the Wikipedia FUR policy for music is it's OK to upload a portion of a song as long as it's less than 10% of the song length, but I don't know if this also applies to video. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Robial's graphic creations and logos (2)

[edit]

Hello,

In the discussion page of the deletion request[8], I provided evidence and sources that these graphic creations are indeed protected by copyright, and that the criteria of "simplicity" or lack of "originality" cannot be retained, due to the sources highlighting that in 1984, they were considered avant-garde and particularly original. And at least, if Commons precautionary principle rules applies[9], these files has to be only uploaded on fr.wikipedia.org. Tisourcier (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They may have been "avant-garde" for the area of logos, but ultimately it's just text and the font isn't particularly artistic or unusual. There have been court rulings that logos that consist of simple text are not copyrightable. The only thing I can think of that might justify a deletion based on the precautionary principle is that the logo is from a country where simple text logos are copyrighted and/or a country with a very low threshold of originality, so that even simple designs are copyrighted, for example a simple Black Square. Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category with movie props from 2001 - Space Odyssey

[edit]

I harbour the doubt that a lot of imagery in Category:2001: A Space Odyssey - film props and subcats is actually a copyvio when I'm going with Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Movie props, as space suits, spacecraft models and other things are most likely not utilitarian. Am I mistaken or not? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume things like cutlery and functional chairs are fine, whatever drove their design. The space suits are probably OK: I've never really heard of a U.S. case where anything this close to being clothing was deemed copyrightable. Models of spaceships might be problematic: if there's an issue, that would be the most likely. The images of HAL 9000 look awfully simple to be granted copyright: it's hard to imagine what could be copyrightable in File:Stanley Kubrick The Exhibition - TIFF - 2001 A Space Odyssey (15781843143).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 05:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube Channel Logos

[edit]

What are the rules on using channel logos for articles?

For context, I am attempting to use https://www.youtube.com/@kairikibear/, for a draft, and since other channels have their profile picture listed, or a photo of the person, I wanted to double check. Alex.Dybala (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex.Dybala: The logo there (if I'm looking at the right thing, the manga-ish image of a head) is way too complex and recent to even possibly be in the public domain. There is a small chance you could get the copyright-holder to license it. If you are thinking of getting it onto Commons (which I don't think is very likely), start by reading Commons:Uploading works by a third party.
Assuming you are talking about the English-language Wikipedia, what is much more likely is to get it directly into en-wiki on a non-free basis, and not involve Commons at all. See en:Wikipedia:Non-free content and en:Wikipedia:Logos. NOTE that you cannot upload a non-free logo to use in a draft article. Get the article accepted in en-wiki first, then add the non-free logo. But that is all en-wiki stuff, and any further questions you have about that should be asked there. - Jmabel ! talk 05:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg

[edit]

Buenas, para los administradores, una pregunta es posible publicar logos,imágenes, etc. que fueron expirados bajo las leyes anteriores por ejemplo como este (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Acción Democrática.svg) el logo de Acción Democrática en Venezuela fue expirado bajo la ley anterior (antes de que creara la URAA)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AbchyZa22: ¿En que año expiró? En 2006, según el enlace. Claro que 2006 es más tarde que 1996. En 1996, obtuvo derechos en el EEUU por medio de URAA; estos derechos duran 95 años, desde la creación del logo. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel:OK,como creo nuevo template en caso que que Parlamento creara nueva ley? AbchyZa22 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Créeme, si el parlamento venezolano aprueba una nueva ley, alguien creará el template. Pero no le veo la relevancia: si el gobierno venezolano cambia la ley venezolano, eso no afectará los derechos de autor en Estados Unidos, y los últimos son el problema aquí. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

See my addition to COM:CRT/France for some context.

In a nutshell:

  • Before 1902, the French law only protected paintings, engravings, and other assorted literary and artistic works but not sculptures (and architecture).
  • Protections were 10 years p.m.a. in 1793–1866, extended to 50 years p.m.a. from 1866.
  • In 1902, the author's rights law extended this protection to sculptures, but also including architectural works despite not reflected in the amending law's title. The amending law only explicitly cited "sculptures" in its title and in the first paragraph but the amendment includes "les architectes, les statuaires". This implies the French law treats eligible buildings as equivalent to sculptures, since at most 1902 (so in France, buildings = sculptures, not utilitarian objects). At least, we know one aspect of French opposition to US or UK-style FoP rights: buildings are no different from sculptures in France.
  • The 1902 amendment seems non-retroactive (my hunch knly), so all French buildings and sculptures that aren't engravings finished before 1902 are public domain by default (perhaps?). Yet it may no longer be relevant, as it is most likely that the designers of all works made from 1902 and before are already dead for more than 50/70 years.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 22:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The EU copyright directive was fully retroactive so it does not matter much what the old laws were (unless possibly longer). They are at least 70pma regardless of what the old laws were. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg does that also mean any unprotected work (like, for example, pre-1902 French buildings and sculptures) becomes protected courtesy of the French law's compliance to the EU Copyright Directive? [Provided that the architects or artists aren't yet dead for more than 70 years.] JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. It just takes one fully retroactive law to render all earlier ones mostly irrelevant. It could still have an effect on the URAA since that law did not happen until after the URAA in France, but that's moot for architecture since U.S. law doesn't protect pre-1990 buildings at all (and photos of architecture are not derivative works there anyways). Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I noticed a lot of Norwegian politicians lack their portraits on Wikipedia. Based on the Stortinget's official website "Portrettene kan lastes ned og benyttes fritt, men ikke til videresalg." which, when translated, means "The portraits can be downloaded and used freely, but not for resale."

Can the portraits from the website then be reuploaded to the Commons based on that statement?

Halikandry (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That notice isn’t enough for Commons. “Free use but not for resale” is a non-commercial restriction, which conflicts with Commons’ requirement that all files be usable for any purpose (including commercial) under a free license. Because Commons must allow downstream users to redistribute or relicense images (including for commercial projects), a “no resale” clause makes these portraits ineligible for Commons. You could:
  • Ask Stortinget for a fully free license (e.g. CC BY-SA 4.0) that permits any use, including commercial.
  • Host them on English Wikipedia under local fair-use or local-only licensing, if allowed (probably not in case they are still alive)
Until they are explicitly released under a free license compatible with Commons policy, they can’t be reuploaded here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Europe logos

[edit]

I've noticed that logos of the Council of Europe were uploaded locally, except those without lettering:

Former logo (1999-2013)

  • Former logo (1999-2013), no lettering
    Former logo (1999-2013), no lettering
  • Current logo
    Current logo
  • Current logo, no lettering
    Current logo, no lettering

Aren't they {{PD-simple}} or {{Textlogo}}/{{Trademarked}}?--Carnby (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing tag

[edit]

I have uploaded a copy of a Sanborn Insurance Map available from the Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division, Sanborn Maps Collection. The LOC says "The content of the Library of Congress online Sanborn Maps Collection is in the public domain and is free to use and reuse." What is the appropriate tag/licensing to use? It is not PD-old, since the file happens to be from 1944. It is not PD-Gov, since the map was not made by the US government. What do I use? TwoScars (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any particular reason why maps published after 1 January 1930 should be in public domain. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LOC explicitly says all the material in the collection is PD. LOC (USCO) is the foremost authority alongside the courts on copyright in the US, I would trust their assessment. 19h00s (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TwoScars: Probably the same as the other files in the Sanborn maps categories, such as Category:1944 Sanborn maps, PD-US-no notice. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TwoScars and Asclepias: At random, I looked at File:Sanborn Fire Insurance Map from Ashville, Pickaway County, Ohio, 1940, Plate 0001.jpg. The page claims {{PD-US-no notice}}, but that image has "COPYRIGHT 1941 BY THE SANBORN MAP COMPANY" in the upper right corner. The license claim is clearly false. Perhaps the map could use {{PD-US-not renewed}}, but I have not checked for a renewal. Glrx (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also ran File:Sanborn_Fire_Insurance_Map_from_Council_Grove,_Morris_County,_Kansas,_1944,_Plate_0001.jpg through Google OCR, which found the following strings:
  • COPYRIGHT 1937 BY THE SANBORN MAP COMPANY
  • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. NO PART OF THIS
  • MAP MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM
  • WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE
  • SANBORN MAP COMPANY.
Glrx (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Not renewed" seems very likely, but someone needs to do the legwork.
Keep in mind, renewal cost time and money, and there is not a lot of market for a 26-year-old map when you have a new one to sell. - Jmabel ! talk 03:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the LoC has done the research and only scans maps that have aged out or were not renewed. See
So post-1930 maps that were downloaded from the LoC should use {{PD-US-not renewed}}.
The LoC also states that some maps were renewed.
Glrx (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Glrx: Very good observation. Apparently the copyright notice is on the first plate of each series. Given that thousands of Sanborn maps were mass uploaded by a bot specially performing that task, I had assumed that the copyright had been verified. It is also confusing that the Library of Congress does not provide the complete copyright information in the section for the Sanborn maps collection, where users are likely to look for that information, but instead provides it in the general section for fire insurance maps. Well, at least that last page at LoC says that the Sanborn maps on their site are either PD-US-expired or PD-US-not renewed, so no copyvios but possibly many pages to adjust (half a million files uploaded by the bot according to the bot operator ? [10]). -- Asclepias (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is discovered here should be added as a note to Category:Sanborn maps. DMacks (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing tags US for two old Italian photos (Romano and Orlando)

[edit]

Hello, I'd like to add a US licensing tag to the following two photos:

  1. File:Santi Romano.jpg
  2. File:Vittorio Emanuele Orlando.jpeg

If I understand COM:TAG United States correctly, Template:PD-1996 is the appropriate tag: in the source country (Italy), the photos were already in the public domain by 1996, as the 20-year term from creation had expired by then. Is this correct?

Also, the date listed for the second photo may be incorrect. If this information is accurate, it should be 1910 rather than 18 May 2016. Should I go ahead and correct it?

Thanks for your help. Gitz6666 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything published before 1930 is {{PD-US-expired}}. That is the preferred tag. Otherwise yes if PD-Italy applies, if it was taken before 1976 the PD-1996 is the one. PD-Italy is usually for snapshot-type photos though, not studio portraits. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gitz6666: And yes, if we know a date with reasonable confidence, correct it. Very often, we get dates of scans or uploads, not identified as such.
  • Also useful in this respect: things like {{other date|before|1930}} (which produces "before 1930
    date QS:P,+1930-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1326,+1930-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
    ") and {{other date|between|1900|1914}} (which produces "between 1900 and 1914
    date QS:P,+1950-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1319,+1900-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1326,+1914-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
    ").
Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanations. I'll apply the PD-US-expired tag to Orlando's photo, since it was published in 1910. As for Romano, I'll go for the PD-1996. I will also correct the date in Orlando's photo. Thanks, Gitz6666 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of Heute.at license

[edit]

File:Papa Leão XIV no dia de sua eleição.png deleted because "Copyright violation: Taken from the Internet"

But the source code of the URL stated says

{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@type":"ImageObject","contentUrl":"https:\/\/heute-at-prod-images.imgix.net\/2025\/05\/08\/a6f622d3-8f8a-4447-8a95-635e657e07a9.jpeg?rect=0%2C157%2C3020%2C1699&auto=format","creator":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Heute.at","url":"https:\/\/www.heute.at"},"creditText":"REUTERS", "copyrightNotice":"REUTERS","license":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/","caption":"Leo XIV. \u2013 das ist der neue Papst","keywords":"","acquireLicensePage":"https:\/\/www.heute.at\/impressum"} "license":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"

@Bedivere: says that I need to proof that REUTERS released the image in this license, but i think that the statement of whoever published it is enough at least to not be deleted quickly but rather to be discussed. Augustresende (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

URL to independent verification: https://www.heute.at/i/papst-leo-xiv-das-boese-wird-nicht-gewinnen-120107300/doc-1iqold7uh4 Augustresende (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this on the Village pump rather than a normal undeletion request? - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know the validity of this argument that Bedivere used in this case. Augustresende (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an undeletion request already, @Jmabel Bedivere (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When a website put the license attribute in the image tag like this, Google will show it in image results filtered by Creative Commons. Some newspapers use this with all images on their site even that they don't own as a trick just to get more clicks  REAL 💬 ⬆   01:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Bedivere (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Attribution vs Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses

[edit]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pope Leo XIV childhood home.jpg. What about simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. In particular, the license must meet the following conditions:

  • Republication and distribution must be allowed.
  • Publication of derivative work must be allowed.
  • Commercial use of the work must be allowed.
  • The license must be perpetual (non-expiring) and non-revocable. @Bedivere: as closing admin.

And a general question to all users: doesn't this template contradict the COM:L policy? 92.243.181.223 07:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It gets into arguable details. "Used freely" is a difficult phrase, as in our case, "free" does not simply mean without cost, but is more about the "freedom" of the file itself -- to not be able to be put back under more restrictive copyright later on. See https://freedomdefined.org . Someone saying "freely" may very well have the first in mind, which is very different. But, "however you’d like" is worded differently -- that directly states any use at all, including republication and modification and distribution and commercial use (usually, commercial use must be explicitly restricted if you want to do that). The perpetual condition is more difficult -- whether a license is revocable by default or not when not explicitly mentioned has come up in some court cases. I believe the rule is that when there is consideration involved, i.e. money or something else coming back to the author, it is by default not revocable (this can differ based on country of course; I'm talking about the U.S.). And I believe that "credit" has been ruled to be consideration in some court cases, though not sure in reference to the revocable question. The {{BSD}} license, among others, do not mention revocability yet are some prime examples of free licenses. The problem with off-the-cuff licenses is that when parsed from a legal perspective, subtle differences in word choice can have large impacts, and they can be very arguable either way, so those come down to community consensus. The WTFPL is considered fine, for example. {{Attribution}} was one of the very early license tags here, and though we greatly prefer a more specific license, we continue to allow that. A custom license means it should get greater scrutiny -- the DR seems reasonable to discuss it. But if that was the exact wording of the license -- I can't see it at the source offhand -- I'm find with the outcome, too. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's forget 'freely', that's not important. What about all those musts, which are not present at the source? 92.243.181.223 08:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a repeat of some concern at Template talk:Attribution only license#Disservice?. Ping also the participants of that thread: @Jean-Frédéric, Wittylama, Kaldari, Christoph Braun, McZusatz, Effeietsanders, KKoolstra, and Botev: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The situation in the DR is problematic. The creator of the file didn't use the wording in {{Attribution}} which I believe complies with COM:L (they probably never read that wording), instead they simply wrote "you may use it however you’d like with credit", which is the example of what not to do in COM:L#Acceptable licenses. I think there's a reasonable chance that they did not fully understand what it means for a file to be released freely by our definition (e.g. republication, derivative, commercial, perpetual, non-revocable).
{{Attribution}} should not be used when someone says "sure go ahead and use my file" - that's insufficient for us. It is appropriate for some other scenarios like those discussed in Template talk:Attribution only license#Disservice?, or if the releaser explicitly agrees to its wording. Consigned (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put it more simply, I think the file is eligible for {{No permission since}}, in that it is missing evidence "the author agreed to license the file under the given license". I don't think the author's statement "you may use it however you’d like with credit" is equivalent to "anyone may use it for any purpose, including redistribution, derivatives, commercial, in perpetuity" stated in {{Attribution}}. Consigned (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What part exactly of "you may use it however you’d like" is supposed to be incompatible with "anyone may use it for any purpose"? Also, it was in response to the question "Would you be willing to release it using a Creative Commons license..", so this can also be said to be a permission for them to release it under a CC license.  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:999real, do you see clearly how many musts are missing in the response which you like so much? One of two things: either you are wrong, or you declare that Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses should be rewritten. --92.243.181.223 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "however you’d like" do you think does not include those areas?  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My eyesight must be damaged. If the policy requires that all this must be directly stated, it does not at all resemble that nothing needs to be written, everything is implied, as you claim. 92.243.181.223 14:55, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one, the creator said "you may use it however you'd like", which is very different than "anyone may use it for any purpose". Consigned (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC). Adding: But even if they said "anyone may use it however they'd like", per the policy COM:L that would be insufficient: simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient. Consigned (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update that would probably clarify the issue: [11] --92.243.181.223 16:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asked so that we can be extra safe. I think the current attribution is just fine though Bedivere (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it different than the example that COM:L gives as being insufficient: simply writing that "the material may be used freely by anyone" or similar isn't sufficient ..? -Consigned (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It's not clear how COM:SIG Japan applies to File:Signature Hisahito.png, but it's clear that this is almost certainly not the own-work of its uploader Spectra321578 unless the uploader is claiming to be en:Prince Hisahito of Akishino. If it's truly the uploader's own work and they're not Prince Hisahito, it seems that Commons shouldn't be hosting it because doing so would be considered misleading at the very least. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The signature is based on his name, what's not clear? This is my own work, why are you butting in? Spectra321578 (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a genuine trace of his signature or an artists recreation Cyberwolf (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
genuine of course Spectra321578 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a grey area imo they traced the signature or photographed the signature which makes them the creator of said image and content but content was originally by someone else so… Cyberwolf (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is no problem with considering it "free," but it should probably be described as a "traced signature" rather than just a "signature", and both authors should be acknowledged. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do it interestingly? Spectra321578 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An situtation

[edit]

So I play IRacing (a paid service) using the ARCA car (a paid add on) on which i created a custom livery myself

I then took a “screenshot” its a photo as defined in iracing and is referred to such in the hobbyist space “sim racing photography” where you manipulate a big set of controls (literally a photographers dream). I assume this goes under de minimus as the background is just racetrack un less NASCAR copyrights the track surface. The model is technically owned by Chevy but i painted over a lot of it Cyberwolf (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stock certificate? Police pass?

[edit]

Any thoughts on this stock certificate and this police pass, both of which are from the SoHo Memory Project. Do they fall below the Commons:Threshold of originality? RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both appear to be {{PD-US-No notice}} which does not require a judgement call near the edge of TOO. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks. File:SWN Goldstein Press Passes.jpg and File:SWN Wollper stock shares.jpg RoySmith (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Leo XIV video from Kanal13

[edit]

Hi, We have a copy at File:Newly elected Pope Leo XIV makes first appearance to crowd in St Peter's Square (Kanal 13).ogg, which has a free license at the source, and a number of screenshots. There are claims that part of the video is copied from Vatican News, which is (c) ARR. I think we should decide quickly if the license of Kanal13 is valid, as these files are used on many places. Thanks for your opinions, Yann (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=1030135176"