Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

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 (index)
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.


Deprecate Template:PD-BNF and Template:PD-GallicaScan[edit]

The templates {{PD-BNF}} and {{PD-GallicaScan}} were created in 2008 when the general assumption was that everything the Bibliotheque Nationale de France scanned for Gallica is in the public domain. As we know now, that is not the case, and the BNF has changed the rights remark for many of its magazine, newspaper etc. scans to ""Droits  : Consultable en ligne" (rights: can be viewed online) - at least in the French language version; in the English version, you can confusingly still often read Rights: public domain for the very same magazine or paper, while the German version doesn't mention the copyright status at all.

Anyway, it should be clear that because some file is from the BNF or Gallica, that does not mean it's automatically in the public domain. So my proposal is to deprecate these two tags and mark them accordingly that they should not be used for new files. For new files from BNF/Gallica that are in the public domain for some other reason (because the author died over 70 years ago etc.), only the regular PD-old, PD-scan etc. tags should be used. If we don't do this, these tags will always come back to bite us in the a** because people will use them for new uploads. Thoughts? --Rosenzweig τ 10:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mostly  Support. Wording of these templates in indeed a problem. It should be mentioned that there are not sufficient for Commons, that a verification of the copyright status and a proper license are needed. Yann (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mostly  Support per Yann.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Admittedly I don't have much experience in the area, but the proposal seems reasonable from doing a basic glance at the templates and how they are being used. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I've changed both templates so that they now say the file might NOT be in the public domain and might be deleted if not in the PD; also that other valid license tags should be used. To do this, I've created a new marker template {{PD Gallica warning}} (modeled on {{PD German stamps warning}}).

The specific wording could probably still be improved. Thoughts on that? --Rosenzweig τ 12:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. We have now 1,403,257 files with a deprecated template. How do we fix that? Yann (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a large-scale tag swap we'd probably need a bot. Anything from ca. 1900 or before should most likely be ok, so perhaps the license tags for these files could be replaced with a suitable PD-old tag by a bot? For anything newer (and that might still be a lot), we'd probably need a file by file manual review. And that would most likely take a long time, see the German stamps situtation still in progress after a decade. --Rosenzweig τ 13:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely. We have 1.4 million files with a giant PLEASE DELETE ME sign on them, maybe some miniscule fraction of 1% actually might need removal upon request. Yes, the wording should be changed to the usual & much more neutral "... has been deprecated. This template should be changed to ..." like these things normally have.
Absolutely, though, the shift will require bots and we shouldn't be going out of our way to encourage removal of the files until such bots are available. This cart got waaaaaaay out in front of its horse. — LlywelynII 04:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fwiw,  Strong oppose until this can be handled better and less disruptively than what's currently going on. I've spent multiple weeks of my life on editing and research for several hundred of the files badly impacted by this. Others are doubtless in the same boat. The way we handle PD-Art would've been a much better way to handle this: "...please specify why the underlying work is public domain in both the source country and the United States..." Simply changing the PD license to PD-Old etc. will remove the previously provided links to the BNF files.
@Yann: @Jeff G.: @Adamant1: Those arguments might not cause you to change your vote ("might as well get started & the links don't matter") but, given how this has shaken out in practice, do you have suggestions for minimizing the damage and disorder this is going to cause? Are there any mass-PD-editing utilities similar to HotCat for categories to speed this up? I have to edit everything here through a series of proxies to get over the Great Firewall & going file by file would be a vastly prohibitive waste of time. — LlywelynII 05:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My suggestion would be to look into how the review of German stamps was handled after they were found not to be PD. Which, as Rosenzweig has pointed out, still hasn't been fully dealt with 10 years later. So I don't think you have to worry about all the files being immediately deleted. Nor does anyone expect you to deal with it on your own. Let alone at all. Just as long there's a consensus about how to handle it and basic things being done to move in the direction of reviewing the files at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: Did those stamps come with 24+ point text "warning" that the files "could" be deleted at any point? I'm dubious. — LlywelynII 06:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, but neither does anything having to do with have such a warning either. If you look at the template for German stamps though it says "this file is most likely NOT in the public domain. It has been marked for review, and will be deleted in due course if the review does not find it to be in the public domain. Which I think is totally reasonable. If you look at Category:German stamps review there's still upwards of 8 thousand files that haven't been reviewed. That's just ones that are included in the category to, but there's others. With German stamps specifically, they are only being reviewed now because I've been slowly going through them over the past year. There's no one gunning to delete anything in mass though. So your assertion that the files will be immediately deleted the second we implement this is clearly hyperbole. Really, probably no one is going to delete the files. Let alone any time soon or in mass. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LlywelynII: So what is your proposal for the wording of the templates? And how do you think should we prevent them being used to upload copyrighted files, as some users are doing now? If we don't stop that, the amount of files will only get larger. And as Adamant1 pointed out, nobody in fact proposed to delete over 1 million files. Right now it says that the files might not be in the public domain and might be deleted. --Rosenzweig τ 05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're curious, in toto, this seems like a (bad) answer searching for a (miniscule) problem. The template was largely fine and helpfully included a link to the BNF that the current solution will just delete. The things that shouldn't be uploaded shouldn't've been uploaded with or without this template's existence. They can be uploaded with or without this template's existence. The template could be rephrased to only cover the appropriate material. The problem would be exactly the same and it wouldn't be putting 1.4 million valid files at risk.
At minimum (as already explained above) the language of the edit should be more neutral, more in keeping with similar templates like PD-Art, and simply request that separate/additional licensing be provided. — LlywelynII 06:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LlywelynII: "has been depreciated": I presume you mean "has been deprecated". (Normally I'd let is slide, but since this appears to be a proposed edit…) - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: "Normally I'd let is slide": I presume you mean "I'd let it slide". (Normally I'd let it slide, but since this appears to be needless snark... Yes, if the normal phrasing is slightly different, sure, use some version of that instead. Neither here nor there. Still, do kindly leave some notes on the merits of what we're talking about. It's possible I'm just completely wrong in thinking that the current phrasing will cause a much bigger problem than the original issue. Some of the original posters hadn't even noticed that 1.4 million files were affected, though.) — LlywelynII 06:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LlywelynII: "included a link to the BNF that the current solution will just delete": Which "current solution" do you mean? All links to BNF in the file descriptions are still there, none were deleted. And yes, when replacing the PD-GallicScan tag with an appropriate PD-old tag, another template with just the link (like {{Gallica}}, which does that without any claim of public domain) will have to be added at the same time. --Rosenzweig τ 07:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've changed the templates a bit so that the collapsed section with the deprecated tag is now expanded by default. --Rosenzweig τ 08:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need a wording saying these are not eligible for a mass deletion, just to prevent fear and conflicts. There are a lot of cases where the BNF doesn't claim a copyright, although it could, e.g. File:Portrait Roi de france Clovis.jpg. Would replacing the current template by {{CC-0}} be OK? Yann (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've changed the wording of {{PD Gallica warning}} so that possible deletion is now mentioned in the last paragraph. @Yann: What do you mean with your CC-0 proposal? Insert CC-0 in those cases you mentioned "where the BNF doesn't claim a copyright, although it could"? You mean in addition to a PD-old template for the underlying work? --Rosenzweig τ 13:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. Yes, in addition to a license for the content itself, we need a license for the picture when it is not 2D (i.e. when PD-Art/PD-scan doesn't apply). Yann (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does the BNF explicitly refer to CC-0 somewhere, or is this some other declaration that they don' claim such copyrights? Or is it just implicit / assumed etc.? Even if it is "only" implicit, we can most likely still find a way to express that, but we should try to get it as correct as we can. For the coin image you linked, the BNF now says "Droits : Consultable en ligne". Is that their new default? --Rosenzweig τ 17:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May be. BNF doesn't use CC-0, but there is usually a "public domain" mention. I wonder if we should use PD-self or CC-0, or something else. There are a number of cases where they said that the pictures are in the public domain, and later changed their mind, e.g. File:En attendant Godot, Festival d'Avignon, 1978 f22.jpg. Fernand Michaud donated all his pictures to the BNF, and they were available with a public domain notice, but that was later changed. Yann (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe create something under Category:No known restrictions license tags? - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, there were no new contributions here (or in the parallel COM:VP discussion) for a few days now, so the initial fears of imminent mass deletions seem to have died down. There was no bot mass-tagging files as missing license tags because of the tag deprecation, and nobody was launching mass deletion requests because of it.

So the task at hand is now how to replace the bulk (hopefully) of the PD-GallicaScan and PD-BNF license tags with better and more fitting tags so only a small percentage (hopefully very small) of them remain to be examined if they have to be put through the deletion process.

I've looked at various categories and files both here and at the BNF web site, and I've noticed that we really cannot rely (anymore, if ever) on what the BNF writes on the file description pages as far as copyright is concerned. In the French description, for all files at which I've looked I found "Droits : Consultable en ligne", regardless if it was a map from the 1600s or a magazine from 1970. In the English description, they say "Rights: public domain" for the very same files, 1600s map as well as 1970 magazine. In other languages (German, Spanish, Italian, Russian) I didn't see anything about copyright in the descriptions. Given that situation, what the BNF writes on its file description pages about copyright has become meaningless, and it really was about time that we retired and deprecated those tags.

Now what the proper replacement tags for PD-GallicaScan and PD-BNF are depends on the individual file. For those with named authors it would be some variety of PD-old or PD-old-auto, plus a tag like PD-expired or PD-1996 if they're also in the public domain in the US. I don't know how well a bot could do this, maybe better if the file description page uses a specific {{Creator}} tag for the author. For files with no named author, but a date older than 120 years, PD-old-assumed(-expired) could be a solution.

I've looked at some press agency photos from the Rol and Meurisse agencies we have which usually came from Gallica. The usual rationale here is that these agency photos are collective works accd. to French copyright, and {{PD-France}} applies if they're older than 70 years. I've tried to change some tags with VisualFileChange, and changed the tags of 200 files or so in Category:1927 photographs by Agence Rol and Category:1926 photographs by Agence Rol. Namely those that simply used {{PD-GallicaScan}} without any parameters, and I've changed that to {{PD-Scan-two|PD-France||PD-US-expired|}}. Stuff like that – very similar files which all take the same relatively simple license tags and are already grouped in categories fitting for the task – could be done without bots with the assistance of VFC, somewhat reducing the overall usage of the deprecated tags. Besides the press agency photos, are there any other suggestions for similar cases?

While VFC can help somewhat, a large number of file description pages will probably have to be changed by bots, especially those where the tags have parameters, which may not be what one excepts (like {{PD-BNF|{{ARK-BNF|ark:/12148/btv1b53184933b}}}}, combining two tags that probably weren't meant to go together). Those are probably too complex to be cleanly replaced with VFC. What do you think would be the best way to proceed with this? Simply turn up at Commons:Bots/Work requests? Ask somewhere else? Gather more details first on what exactly should be changed, preferably not here but somewhere else where it won't be archived after a week of no new contributions? --Rosenzweig τ 16:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rosenzweig: Without very specific parameters, I would not want to touch this as a bot task. I don't read French.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: I'm not grasping why you think VFC wouldn't be the main tool for this. Admittedly, I've never taken on something this large that way, but the key to using VFC effectively for this sort of thing is usually to start by a well-chosen search to find a set of images whose tags you want to change in a particular way, and I suspect that a lot of progress could be made reasonably quickly in that manner. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: We'll see. I've now discovered that a huge lump of the 1.4 million files (about half) are in Category:Manuscripts from Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France) uploaded by Gzen92Bot, so uploaded by a bot. There are subcategories there for the works, containing the files for the single pages, and while some only have 2 files, others have over 500. Most are probably somewhere between those two. Per Category:Manuscripts from Gallica, many have less than 10 though. I've changed the tags in a 500+ category already with VFC, that went well I think, and by concentrating on the larger categories one could get down the number of template usages fairly quickly. Until only the smaller categories are left to change, and those would be more tiresome. Maybe the bot operator who uploaded these files could help out. --Rosenzweig τ 22:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and PS, not every search can be used as a basis for VFC unfortunately, as I found out. You can search for "has template XYZ" and everything, but VFC then won't accept that search, or more precisely, you're not even offered to use VFC then. --Rosenzweig τ 22:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't get around to try replacing more tags with VFC, but will try to do so tomorrow. --Rosenzweig τ 20:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: You can instead search for "insource:{{XYZ}}", with quotes if necessary.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've done some more both in the press agency and the manuscript categories, several hundred files. I'll probably have a bit more time to dedicate to this task over the holidays, so we'll see how many files can have their tags replaced in the near future. With just under 1.4 million files still left it will still take a lot of time until it is done. --Rosenzweig τ 23:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PD-MAGov[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong architectural permission?[edit]

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

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

What license are these under?[edit]

Hello!

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

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

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

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

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

Temporary works under Singapore's FOP[edit]

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

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

WokelyCorrect Comics[edit]

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

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

Taxons[edit]

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

Icelandic Meteorological Office[edit]

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

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

Mr Bean[edit]

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

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

Conflicting licenses[edit]

Hi, What do think about the license of File:Sector Berlin Biographie Ceuse France.jpg? There is a free license at [1], but the image itself is CC by-nc-nd (click on the image, and then on (i) ). Yann (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Rogério da Silva Santana[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Setwikirec0 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Caffenio logo under US Copyright?[edit]

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

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

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

Recent CQ/Roll Call images[edit]

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

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

RE: Query on a few photos uploaded to WC[edit]

Hi,

Good evening.

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

However I have a few photos uploaded recently of:

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

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

3) Some photos of some Irish language fridge magnets.

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

with no question mark over copyright).

Regards,

Darren Darren J. Prior (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Copyright situation of Greek army flags[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thankyou. Peter Neaum (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

Corporate copyright after company dissolution[edit]

assuming english law.

the company publishing a newspaper owns its copyright, right?

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

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

@RZuo: I don't specifically know English law on this, but pretty much everywhere, when a corporation is dissolved, some entity acquires its intellectual property rights. If there are unpaid creditors, then sometimes a successor entity is set up for this purpose, owned by the creditors. If not, then it could go to any sort of entity: an individual, another company, a non-profit, a government agency. Occasionally, as with an intestate individual, the rights may be in limbo for an indefinite period of time. And, of course, as with a person's will, if things are contested then it can take a long time to disentangle who owns what. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, i'm trying to find out who might still inherit the copyright from the dissolved company.
it's a bit like Vivian Maier. the curator of her films paid a distant relative to show that they have tried their best to buy over her copyright that could be inherited by someone. what i want to do something similar are newspapers that folded before 2000 in hong kong. RZuo (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't the copyrights have defaulted to the government of China since they don't really allow for private news companies? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

AbchyZa22 (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not a matter of threshold of originality. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Unsure of copyright at File:K2inGjU 400x400.jpg[edit]

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

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

Copyleft Trolls[edit]

Hi, See [3] for background. Cory Doctorow and Joshua Brustein accuse Larry Philpot of using Commons to sue people. Nenad Stojkovic is also mentioned by Doctorow. Nightshooter didn't upload anything since October 2013, but we should probably do something here. Images by Marco Verch were previously deleted for the very same reason. Yann (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=835122246"