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.

Status of UK signatures after THJ v Sheridan (trying again)

[edit]

I brought this up a couple of weeks ago, but it got bumped to the archive without comment. I think it would be a helpful conversation to have. I have pasted my earlier comment below. Please comment if you have any thoughts on this topic. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at COM:TOO UK, the 2023 court case of THJ v Sheridan moved the threshold of originality to a somewhat higher threshold of "author's own intellectual creation". I doubt many signatures would be above this threshold, but the section at COM:SIG UK has not been updated to this effect. Should that be done? And, if so, perhaps we should consider a mass restoration of deleted UK signatures? A mass restoration of logos would not have made sense, because many logos still fall above the relatively low UK threshold, but that doesn't seem likely for simple signatures any more. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Board Game Artwork

[edit]

I HAVE JUST RE-POSTED THIS DISCUSSION AS IT EXPIRED BEFORE I HAD A CHANGE TO WRITE AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION.

THIS IS WHAT I WROTE PREVIOUSLY [1]: I am very unsure about how to use Wiki-Commons. I am just about to do some major editing of a Wikipedia article about a board game, e.g., en:Brass (board game) (Wikipedia 'free link'). I screen-shot the artwork of the game's title on the computer game version, available through Steam. The header is the word "Brass" on a brass plaque. The artwork is clearly not my own work, and I am not sure whether it is the game's logo, as it is the game's title. In addition, since it is a graphic of the game, I assume that the person in control of illustrating the computer version, Magdalena Mudlaff, or the illustrator of the original board game, Peter Dennis, have a copyright over such a graphic. How would I go about working out whether I can use the graphic or getting permission? I seem to see other board games with a complete picture of the game's box cover, including the board game logo, but I am just not sure how they managed to do that. Are such illustrations in the public domain, and, if not, how do they become so? Can you advise me? Thanks in advance for the time taken to lend your assistance.SMargan (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THIS WAS THE RESPONSE [2]:

@SMargan: There are two separate issues here:
  1. Can you upload these materials to Commons? Without seeing the images in question I can't say anything definitive, but it is very unlikely anything related to a game create in recent decades is in the public domain, unless (for example) the logo is too simple to copyright and you want to use that, or the game simply reuses images whose copyright has expired. Otherwise, you'd need the owners of the copyright to release these materials under a free license, and very few owners of commercially valuable materials are likely to do such a thing. If you want a detailed explanation of the issues involved in uploading materials like this to Commons, see Commons:Uploading works by a third party.
  1. Failing that, can you upload these as non-free materials on the English-language Wikipedia without involving Commons? en:Wikipedia:Non-free content allows for allowing certain non-free content (such as logos) directly to en-wiki.

- Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS MY LATEST AND FRESH RESPONSE Jmabel ! talk Template:Ping│Jmabel The logo is the word "Brass" on a brass plague background, as the logo of the 2008 board game "Brass". It is difficult to say whether this would be copyrighted as whilst the game was republished as "Brass - Lancashire" (2018) with a different logo, and the logo is pretty generic, the game was pretty popular and might be copyrighted. I have tried to upload the logo via the first method, but to no available, as I do not think this fits within the allowable criteria.
I am just a little unsure how to proceed with the second method. The link you gave, i.e. en:Wikipedia:Non-free content does not seem to show how to do it, in a format I can understand. Is there a specific part of the page I was meant to be looking at. Can you advise? Is there a link to a "non-free content" uploading area? Thanks in advance for your time responding to this further query of mine.SMargan (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link: en:Wikipedia:File upload wizard HyperAnd (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SMargan: you asked this same question on en-wiki and have been answered there. Please don't double-post the same question. - Jmabel ! talk 17:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese works before 1990

[edit]

Concerned page: COM:CRT/China.

Upon closer inspection to the alleged retroactivity, the clause quoted on the page only meant that retroactive protection was for works that were still in copyright when China'a first-ever copyright law was enacted in 1990.

It appears the world's most populous country (until mid-2020s) had complicated history of copyright. An informal copyright law existed during the Sung dynasty. The three first official copyright laws were enacted in 1910, 1915, and 1928. When the Communist Party took over in 1949, the 1928 law was abolished, and no formal copyright law existed from that year until 1990, when PRC passed their first-ever copyright law. (read this)

Nevertheless, during 1949-90, informal aspects or copyright prevailed, mainly concerning remunerations between authors and publishers, in the form of administrative orders and regulations. The 1982 Audio Visual Measures stipulated reproduction rights on audio-visual materials and -for the first time in the history of the centuries-old land - permitted judicial action against infringers of protected material. Still, the international definition of copyright did not exist in China until 1990.

Assuming these facts by Yang (1993) are true, here are important questions:

  1. Is it possible that all Chinese works before 1990 are automatically in PD, considering that Beijing refused to recognize the copyright law of the Nationalists from 1928, and only started (and enacted) their own copyright law in 1990?
  2. Considering that the retroactivity clause quoted at COM:CRT/China is only valid for works that were protected when the 1990 law was passed, it may imply that some works (or categories of works) were protected before 1990. What are those or which categories are those?
  3. Is it possible that there may be some parallel situation to that in the US? Considering that (per Yang 1993) informal copyright rules and regulations existed during 1949-90, mainly concerning remunations over uses of literary works and rules governing reproductions and royalties on audio-visuals. Could it be that copyright registration was the norm during 1949-90?

More insights and comments needed. This may mean that we must remove {{FoP-China}} tag from images of many Chinese buildings and monuments (completed before 1990), if these are found to be unprotected works from the beginning. Also, tons of deleted old Chinese photos may be restored as unprotected (unregistered) pre-1990 Chinese works (again, assuming the facts above are true).

Pinging some Chinese-speaking users @Teetrition, Liuxinyu970226, Wcam, Shizhao, 猫猫的日记本, 1969社论, 农业学大寨, N509FZ, 茅野ふたば, HingWahStreet, and 沈澄心: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably @BrightRaven, Jianhui67, Jusjih, King of Hearts, Minorax, Mys 721tx, VIGNERON, Clithering, Hehua, Sanmosa, Ghren, For Each element In group ... Next, Ericliu1912, 暁月凛奈, and 自由雨日: should also be mentioned due to recent likely matter on zhwiki VPC. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A complicated thing is that the ROC government actually moved to Taiwan, instead of being completely dissolved, in 1949, and some works created in Chinese Mainland before 1949 may be distributed in Taiwan after 1949, so the copyright law of ROC should still be in force (unless the copyright has been expired under the copyright law of ROC) for those works created in Chinese Mainland between 1928 and 1949. However, it still implies that any PRC copyright law-related tags should be removed from those works, as the copyright law of PRC is unrelated to those works.
For the works created in Chinese Mainland between 1949 and 1990, as the time gap for copyright law being absent in PRC is smaller than 50 years, the retroactivity clause may have effectively covered the time gap (50 years for legal bodies and organizations, 50 years after death for natural people) for all kinds of works intended to be protected by the copyright law of PRC. This implies that even if we know the absence of copyright law once happened in PRC, it does not change a lot for the current situation. Sanmosa Outdia 02:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add more difficulty to the issue: Mao Zedong did establish the current PRC 1st October, 1949, but they had control over areas since the very early 1930s, they proclaimed the Soviet Republic 7th November, 1931 and, even if somebody claims they were rushed then by the KMT, after the long march they did hold control of Yan'an until the PRC was established, and Yan'an was of importance for cultural works then.
I don't have a solution, but just to add more nuances to the debate. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The retroactivity clause could have covered most of these though. —— Eric Liu（Talk） 08:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Deepseek and it seems like retroactivity happened:

The 1990 Copyright Law (Article 55) didn't require works to have formally held copyright before 1991. Instead, it asked: "Would this work have qualified for copyright protection *if the 1990 law had existed at its creation?"** 156. This is a legal fiction ("as if" principle), not historical reality.

Case Study:Black Cat Detective (1984)

  • Creator: Zhu Zhixiang (died 2015).
  • 1991 Status: Zhu was alive → hypothetical copyright term (life + 50) was still running → granted retroactive protection until 2065 15.
  • Key point: The work didn't "hold" copyright in 1984, but it met the criteria for protection under the 1990 law's standards.

In short: The law created a hypothetical timeline for pre-1991 works. If their "as if" copyright term was active on June 1, 1991, they received protection. The absence of formal copyright pre-1991 was irrelevant to this legal fiction.

TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A series of copyvios

[edit]

A user has uploaded a number of images that are obviously scans from 1989 or 1990 images and not "own work" from 2025, that is, derivative work. The true copyright holder is not named, much less do we have their consent.
I marked the first one or two I came upon as copyvio but have since discovered that there is about 20 of them. Do I have to mark them all individually or is there some sort of batch process? Can someone help with this please? Thanks, --2003:C0:8F47:500:D1C2:E364:14CF:236F 11:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"own work" simply means they own the copyright. If they are scanning their own slides from 1990 or whatever, the license is still fine and there are no copyvios -- the uploader is the copyright holder as we generally assume. Only if these were first published elsewhere, which you can find, would there be some copyright issues. I have scope concerns looking through some of those, and quite possibly some privacy issues. There is a batch process for deletion nominations, but not all of their uploads have either of the above concerns. Some are probably fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but that reasoning does not make any sense to me. The uploader claims "own work" from 2025, which quite clearly means she scanned the images from somewhere in 2025. I don't see any indication for assuming that she took the photos herself 35 years ago. --2003:C0:8F47:500:D1C2:E364:14CF:236F 14:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see any indication that she did NOT take the photos herself 35 years ago? If so, then Nakonana (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see below. --2003:C0:8F47:500:D1C2:E364:14CF:236F 18:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photos are clearly dated in the filenames and descriptions. The value in the date field is just the date of upload (maybe of publication). It has nothing to do with copyright and does not cause something to be a copyvio. Only the ownership of the copyright matters, and if these are not previously published, then the uploader clearly has access to something nobody else does, and usually that indicates an ownership of copyright. Either they took them themselves, or they are family photos where they inherited the copyright. Either way the licenses are fine and valid. If the latter situation, it can help to use a license tag with "heirs" or mention that, but that is not strictly speaking necessary. "own work" just means they own the copyright, not necessarily that they are the author (though that information is welcome too). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These should be dated accurately, though, even if the most accurate they can do is something liken {{other date|between|1988|1992}}. Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Jasmindawes, there is no reason we should be talking about this user behind their back. - Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are not. I addressed her on her German WP talk page. She replied that these are from "family property" which, to me, clearly says that she herself is not the photographer. I assume that she has since lost interest because the article they were meant for has been speedy deleted on the German WP. --2003:C0:8F47:500:D1C2:E364:14CF:236F 18:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if she has lost interest we won't sort it out, but if she is still interested and had inherited the rights to these photos, {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}} would be perfectly acceptable (in conjunction with correct attribution and dating). - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Locally uploaded freedom of panorama images

[edit]

Slovenia has no freedom of panorama. If I upload an image of modern building or statue locally on sl.wiki and publish it under {{self|cc-zero}}, does the image falls under fair use, which means minimal usage and low resolution file? Slovenian law allows free usage for non-commercial purposes of any kind for such material. Janezdrilc (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question is best posted on the Slovenian Wikipedia version of the Village pump, if ever there is. There are village pumps in every local wiki websites. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is we have no legal expert so there is a confusion of tolerating full resolution files. What is Wikimedia Foundation general policy on such cases? --Janezdrilc (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair use" is a specifically common-law doctrine, and Slovenia is not a commons-law country.
The Slovenian Wikipedia has its own rules for non-free content: sl:Wikipedija:Avtorske pravice. I don't read Slovenian. - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Photo News (NZ)

[edit]

This defunct New Zealand magazine (which ceased publication in the early 1970s) has been digitised by the Nelson Museum with a CC-BY-NC-ND license, which I realise of course is not compatible with Commons requirements. However, a former editor of the magazine has advised me that is willing to allow two of his own published photographs (which he took himself and holds the copyright for) to be added to Commons. However, he no longer has access to the original negatives - we would have to use the copies from the Museum's website. What's the best way to go about this without argument? Muzilon (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COM:VRT. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of a similar case where a photographer uploaded a photo to Commons that happened to have been published previously in a certain journal. Some Commons Admin did a Google Image Search for the photo, came across the image in the journal online, and "speedily deleted" the photo, saying it must have been 'stolen' from the journal and that the uploader was lying about being the photographer/copyright holder. The photographer then had to argue with COM:VRT before the latter grudgingly approved the upload. I would prefer not to have a similar incident here. Muzilon (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Muzilon: If the file uses the {{PermissionTicket}} template, it will not be speedy deleted. Nosferattus (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be simplest for me to use my own Commons account to upload the two photos with a {{Permission pending}} tag, and the editor/photographer (who doesn't have a Commons account) can then email his 'blessing' to VRT citing the Commons URL's. Muzilon (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Help Reviewing My Uploads (User:Skibjm08)

[edit]

Hello, I have recently become aware that some of my uploads may not comply with Wikimedia Commons' licensing policies, particularly concerning images of sculptures, branded products, or other copyrighted works. I would appreciate it if someone could review my uploads and advise on any that should be nominated for deletion. My gallery is available at: User:Skibjm08. Thank you for your assistance. I was acting in good faith. Skibjm08 (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time and inclination to go closely through all of your uploads, but some strike me immediately as problematic:
Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of originality - Felix Gonzalez-Torres billboard

[edit]

Hi all, hoping for some second opinions on a threshold of originality question. This work by Félix González-Torres - "Untitled" (1989), first published in the U.S. - comprises a billboard with a series of phrases/names/events and dates in white text against a black background. The billboard is super visually simple and most of the phrases are clearly PD (this is from his series of date portraits/date lists), but I'm of the mind that it might be eligible for copyright by virtue of arrangement, similar to certain found-text poetry or other semi-derivative text-based works. Any other thoughts?

Wondering if the images of this work should either be nominated for deletion or re-formatted and integrated into the relevant category for works by the artist under the threshold.

Thanks for any insights! 19h00s (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@19h00s: That is a tough one. I would suggest creating a deletion discussion for it. Nosferattus (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosferattus and anyone interested: Deletion discussion 19h00s (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can We Upload *my* Logo?

[edit]

Can We Upload This? This is just an anonymous username (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a read at COM:Licensing, COM:SCOPE and Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Trademarks. Then, you can ask any question that are still unclear. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy between Flickr and File

[edit]

File:Chopped_white_chocolate_chunks.jpg gives a dead link for its Flickr source. The file was uploaded in 2009, but the earliest saved page on the Wayback Machine is 2016. In the archived page, the licence is given as nc-sa/2.0/, while the Commons file describes the licencing as simply CC BY 2.0.

It says "This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, was uploaded to Commons using Flickr upload bot on 5 May 2010, 15:13 by Mindmatrix. On that date, it was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the license indicated."

Is this a case of the uploader to Commons getting the licence wrong? Or has the Flickr uploader changed the licencing retrospectively? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rollinginhisgrave I suspect the Flickr uploader changed the license sometime after the file was imported here, perhaps expressing displeasure that their image got exposed in various media and platforms due to having an imported file here, and decided to change the licensing. Nevertheless, the Flickr uploader is too late; CC licenses are technically irrevokable. We have {{Flickr-change-of-license}} tag, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JWilz, I've added the template now. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PD-1996

[edit]

Buenas ,el Template {{PD-1996}} se aplica si las fotografías, logos,etc. pasaron al Dominio Público antes de URAA?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Requiere que retuvo derechos de autor en su páis original de publicación en 1966. - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure to understand Jmabel's answer to the question.
{{PD-1996}} se aplica si la obra pasó al dominio público en el país de origen antes de la fecha URAA, que es 1996 para la mayoría de países. Pere prlpz (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pere prlpz: me siento, la culpa es mía, no leía la plantilla, solamente veía el nombre. Creía que AbchyZa22 preguntó si la restauración de derechos en los EEUU aplica, el revés de lo que preguntó. - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:EnglishHeritageLogo.svg

[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but for File:EnglishHeritageLogo.svg, I'm like 99.99% sure that the copyright tag is wrong. The logo was designed in 1984 by Negus & Negus, a British graphic design firm. I doubt the uploader holds any claim to copyright just because he converted it to SVG. Even then, it would probably qualify for public domain per Template:PD-textlogo, right?  Bait30  pls ping me when you reply? 18:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is likely below the ToO. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So am I allowed to unilaterally change the copyright tag on the file based on this?  Bait30  pls ping me when you reply? 21:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bait30: The SVG may be copyrightable, so I wouldn't remove the license, but I'd add the PD tag. - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So like this?  Bait30  pls ping me when you reply? 02:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coca-Cola AI ads: screenshots OK?

[edit]

I'm looking at uploading pieces of the AI-generated Coca-Cola ads, which are covered on the en:AI slop Wikipedia article. This behind-the-scenes video suggests that most of the images were generated entirely using AI; however, there appears to be some human authorship in the videos as a whole:

  • Most of the Coca-Cola trucks have logos edited onto them; there's one clip where the Coca-Cola logo is spelled "Coca-Coola" and is right above the wheel instead of taking up the entire side of the truck, which was clearly AI-generated. (Screenshot here)
  • The images of Coke bottles were created partly through 3-D modeling, so the rigging is copyrightable.
  • The finished ads were made by assembling individual video clips by hand.
  • The background music is based on a pre-existing composition and was recorded by humans.

So it seems to me that select frames from the ad would be okay to upload, especially when there is no evidence of human authorship in them. The "Coca-Coola" one would be especially suitable for the article as it illustrates the AI methods used. Qzekrom (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work involving simple flags and simple texts

[edit]

A new editor uploaded File:EU-Japan Centre New Logo.jpg for the article en:EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation. The said editor has previously claimed to be an intern in the same organisation. I believe that this logo is in public-domain because EU and Japan's flags are too simple to meet threshold of originality, and apart from that, the only other content in the logo are simple texts. So, what are the copyright tags that this logo should have? —‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 19:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph made available for the public to download, already uploaded to Commons

[edit]

Hello. I came across File:Portrait of Cardinal Advincula.jpg, which lists the Manila Cathedral as both source and author and indicates CC Universal Public Domain Dedication as the license.

I verified that the photograph is from a Google Drive link in a Facebook post by the Manila Cathedral. The post says:

As our gift to everyone, here is a link where you can download high resolution portraits of His Eminence.

Does the file indicate the correct attribution and license and/or is permitted to be uploaded in the Commons? P-JR (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@P-JR "As our gift to everyone, here is a link where you can download high resolution portraits of His Eminence." — to what extent does the cathedral administration allows the usage? "Our gift to everyone" seems vague. Can the image be used in for-profit content of vloggers or content creators? Can the image be used on a travel website that makes profit through advertising? Or can the image be reused by advertising firms however they like? COM:Licensing requires media files that can be reused even for commercial reuses by users around the world, especially by all Pinoys with regards to content from the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 I agree with you. In this case, would it be best to clarify with the cathedral administration or the Archdiocese of Manila under what terms the photographs are being released? What process does the Commons recommend for this?
Otherwise, would the file need to be deleted to avoid potential copyright issues? P-JR (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@P-JR the cathedral must send an email to Wikimedia Foundation if ever they agree to have that particular work licensed freely (email address is found at COM:VRTS). However, they can also send an email expressing disapproval to the commercial Creative Commons licensing or public domain licensing, in which case someone who's aware of the content of the correspondence may nominate the existing file for deletion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Email: [email protected]
But if the cathedral disagrees, they may send thru: [email protected] (if they desire to have the existing file here deleted). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345 Thank you for this guide! I will look to contact the cathedral or archdiocese when I find the time. P-JR (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Médicos Unidos

[edit]

Kind regards. I wanted to ask if this logo ([3]) met the threshold of originality. I see it consists of the national flag of Venezuela and of text, so I've thought that it would not be protected due to its simplicity, although I wanted to confirm this. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly simple. We have no info on the TOO of Venezuela, but I think this one is good to go Bedivere (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bedivere: Roger that, thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus:La bandera venezolana esta al Dominio Público pero el logo es simbolo circulo significa se puede publicar (Derivative of a PD image is below TOO). AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flight of the Amazon Queen license

[edit]

So I've noticed some odd stuff on the screenshot File:Flight of the Amazon Queen.jpg.

  • The licensing info is tagged as PD, but looking at the Debian COPYRIGHT file of the game, it never mentions anything about dedicating the game to the public domain, only the build/packaging scripts. If the PD tag is incorrect, how do you handle that then? I don't think it's worth creating a license tag just to be used for this single screenshot, and {{Attribution}} doesn't seem to fit. Any ideas?
  • The game seems to be DFSG-approved since it's on the main Debian repositories, although some parts of the license seem a little questionable for me, like 2) says "[...y]ou may charge a reasonable copying fee for this archive, and may distribute it in aggregate as part of a larger & possibly commercial software distribution [...]", it doesn't specify what is a "reasonable copying fee" which could be something less than a cent, IDK.
  • And also 3) has "[...y]ou may not charge a fee for the game itself. This includes reselling the game as an individual item. […]" I guess that's kind of a similar situation to {{OFL}}? Since the "don't sell the font by itself" was brought up in DR, yet the template was kept.

Any thoughts or clarifications? :P SergioFLS (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What matters for screenshots is the copyright status of the game assets (sprites), not the code. As long as the assets are released under the same license as the rest of the repository, all is good.
Regarding the SIL Open Font License, the FSF maintains that "a simple Hello World program" satisfies the requirement that the font be bundled with other software if it is sold, so it doesn't really prevent the OFL from being compatible with the open source definition.
(For those not familiar with the term, DFSG stands for Debian Free Software Guidelines.) Qzekrom (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo taken by an unknown German officer during World War II

[edit]

Hello,

I'd like to have an opinion on the status of the photograph on the left of this French newspaper article, the one showing the Morlaix viaduct in the background, in Brittany (France).

This photo was taken from January 29 or 30, 1943 by an unknown German officer just after the Royal Air Force attempted to bomb the viaduct. The officer had the photo developed by a local photographer, Mr. Normandière, who took the opportunity to make a copy for himself. It's this copy that appears today in the press or in the book on this bombardment. I haven't found anything about this German officer. Having had this photo developed by a local photographer, he must have taken it privately. I've just written the article on this bombing on the French Wikipedia and I'd like to use this photo, which clearly shows the failure of this bombing. But what's the status of such a photo, whose author will probably always remain unknown ? TCY (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photos still remain unpublished because their author have never authorized their publication. Though he may well have been killed in action during the war. This the latter case his works are in public domain in Germany, France and USA. Ruslik (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this answer. I find it curious that been killed in action during war places the author's works in the public domain. This is not the case in France, where there are even wartime extensions of copyright.
I did some research of my own in the case of an unknown author. It seems that under French law, copyright subsists, but that publication is authorized with the mention DR (droits réservés = reserved rights). A sum must be set aside for 10 years by the publisher in case the author or his successors are found. In practice, this reserve is never set up; only the mention DR with possibly the addition of unknown author is made.
TCY (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FOP-US vs US-gov

[edit]

Which scripture to follow? If you have an opinion, please join the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amelia Earhart Statue by Mark and George Lundeen.jpg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De Minimis enough?

[edit]

Hi,

I just uploaded an image and wanted to get an opinion on if it's de minimis enough. I'm worried about the sculpture in the background (the sloping object). The focus is on the informational plaque but I wanted to have a slightly wide crop to have some element of the sculpture visible so you can see the location of the plaque.

Let me know if I should crop it more. Thanks! 9yz (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have Commons:De minimis#Guidelines. As you're referencing the sculpture in the description, it'll IMHO fall among the "Maybe" examples in the table below the guidelines. In my personal opinion, I think that the sculpture parts are not yet DM, but I may tend to have a rather strict interpretation of the subject. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Advertisements on buses in no-FOP countries

[edit]

We seem to have accumulated a large number (14k+) of images of advertisements on buses. The vast majority of these advertisements are complex enough to be considered creative works, and many are in countries which do not have freedom of panorama for 2D works, including the US and UK.

Which of these is the case?

  1. These photos should be deleted if they contain advertisements which are not clearly de minimis. (Cropping is generally impossible, as the advertisements are on the body of the bus, and blurring or pixelating thousands of images is clearly not practical.)
  2. These photos can be kept as photos of bus advertisements, but should not be categorized based on the contents of the advertisement (e.g. Category:Film advertisements on buses in the United States).
  3. These photos can be kept as photos of buses, but should not be categorized as containing advertisements at all.
  4. These photos can be kept and categorized however we wish.

Omphalographer (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the Philippines, I have nominated at least one: Commons:Deletion requests/File:01739jfQuirino Highway Santa Monica Novaliches Proper Quezon Cityfvf 03.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Urgs. I doubt that we can truly work only on those 4 cases... In my opinion, it would rather often be option "1,3", meaning: deletion where the advertisements dominate as in JWilz12345's sample above, and on a case-by-case decision, keeping without ad-related categories (File:5505 NWFB 4X 11-08-2018.jpg and File:5214 at Cross Harbour Tunnel Toll Plaza (20180829104045).jpg could be OK as bus illustrations; n.b. I took them only as examples, not checking FOP rules for their country of origin). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok to upload Burj Khalifa image to Wikimedia Commons?

[edit]

Why many Burj Khalifa images are deleted on Wikimedia Commons? 6D (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The building is still protected by copyright. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content (Commons:Licensing), and there is no freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates (COM:FOP UAE). --Rosenzweig τ 16:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@6D just like what Rosenzweig said, it is a building that's still protected under copyright. Technically speaking, though, UAE has very limited panorama exception, but that only permits broadcasters (not photographers) to freely showcase or exhibit images of any copyrighted public landmark without permissions from architects, sculptors or other artists who authored those landmarks. So, we cannot accept any good quality image of the world's tallest skyscraper due to unfriendly UAE law. It may be OK though to upload images of general skyline or cityscapes of Dubai in which no single building (or two or three or so...) is the intended subject (that is, COM:De minimis). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the recent nature of many cities in that country, we cannot host 70-80% of that country on Wikimedia Commons, due to unfriendly FoP law of UAE. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is so funny that Commons can host image of world’s tallest mountain (Mount Everest) but can’t even host image of world's tallest skyscraper (
Burj Khalifa). 6D (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@6D your logic is wrong. Mount Everest is a natural feature, not a work of an architect or artist. Here on Wikimedia Commons, respect to copyrights of architects and sculptors of landmarks from 100+ no-FoP countries precedes the need for supertall skyscrapers.
UAE law remains unfriendly for Wikimedia movement, since their Freedom of Panorama clause is Article 22(7) of their copyright law:

"Present Works of fine, applied, plastic or architectural arts in broadcasting programs if such Works are permanently exist at public places."

Broadcasting programs, not photographs or even videos of netizens/content creators. Unsure when UAE will be "slapped" with the IT/new media age, since their law was last updated in 2021 (just four years ago). Or, perhaps they do not agree that their art, including buildings, are to be exploited by anyone w/o needing architectural or sculptural copyright permissions, and that's why they retained the severely-restricted FoP rule concerning their landmarks. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello,

I cam across some recent uploads tagged {{Mindef}}. Normally, that would be totally fine, but as recent uploads, the needed variable "BY-SA" wasn't set, so files actually under a share-alike condition were stated as CC-Zero. I fixed two of them (Special:Diff/1038278976 and Special:Diff/1038278588). But I do not think that we should falsely advertise files as being more free than they are in reality ASAP. I'm not proficient enough to set up a search query to get all uploads that came in since 2022-01-01 up to now, could somebody help out? Or would that be a bot task (simply add "1=BY-SA" in the template declaration)? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this needs to be changed. I don’t think it is a good idea to have a default option when it comes to licenses, let alone making the default option to be PD. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a PetScan query for files with {{Mindef}} in Category:CC-Zero uploaded after 2022-01-01. Antti T. Leppänen (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=1038383976"