Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2023/07

Is a Carplay screenshot okay?

Looking for some clarification on this. Would it be acceptable to upload a screenshot of the Apple Music now playing interface from Carplay to the Commons? see example.
I am under the impression it would be okay since everything visible in my image is basic text and icons which are not notable enough for copyright. The Beatles album art is also PD. Does software carry some sort of special copyright rules? Many thanks. PascalHD (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@PascalHD: nothing special about the involvement of software. When I look at that URL, I see some stuff under "newest in most viral" that would be problematic, but I suspect you get a different view when logged in. Looks like it could be OK, maybe with a few portions deleted. I'd guess you should edit out anything that looks problematic, then upload. If you come back here with the wikilink after uploading, someone can see if more needs to be deleted from the image. - Jmabel ! talk 04:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

File can be seen here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carplay_Apple_Music_Interface.jpg. Let me know if I should change anything or it's perfect the way it is. Thanks. PascalHD (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I think that's fine. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright & conceptual art

Bit of a doozy, but here's a rather intricate question about a work of conceptual art and its copyright. I uploaded an image that I took this year at the Art Institute of Chicago of artwork by the artist stanley brouwn as non-free, sized-down fair use images on English Wikipedia. The pictured artworks (completed 1961 and 1962 and first published in the Netherlands) are two simple ink line drawings on paper, with a small title stamp and the artist's signature. There are no copyright markings on either work. Given the dates and lack of copyright markings, would these be public domain at this point? Further complicating it, both pieces were created partly by a separate, unknown person. The artist asked strangers to draw simple maps to provide him with directions to an unknown location. Does the second author fundamentally change anything about the artist's ability to copyright these works?

Basically just looking for help on whether these works are actually out of copyright/were copyrighted to begin with. Thanks y'all! 19h00s (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Since they were first published in the Netherlands, the lack of copyright notice would seem irrelevant. So, to me someone certainly owns the copyright to these paintings. Whether it is a joint work or a sole work by the artist would only really become relevant if we had VRT agreement from his heirs and would have to assess whether that were sufficient for us. Felix QW (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Tons of copyvios

Please help with this: I marked one of these uploads as copyvio and then noticed that there are tons of these drawings. I am also sceptical about the "Königsplatz München U-Bahn" uploads: I don't see that these photos meet a threshold of originality, and freedom of panorama is more than questionable in a subway station. --2003:C0:8F4F:5200:B407:62:CDD7:1B38 15:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I filed two DRs. You'd have to look at each of the U-Bahn photos individually, some of the photos on the walls that are shown might already be in the public domain because of age. --Rosenzweig τ 19:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You are right. I did not see that many of those are in turn photos of older pieces of art. Goodness, how complicated. :-) --2003:C0:8F4F:5200:B407:62:CDD7:1B38 21:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about the copyright status of the MediaWiki logo

Moved from Wikipedia:Teahouse § Question about the copyright status of the MediaWiki logo on the English Wikipedia

Style		Logo	Horizontal logo	Large icon	Icon	Small icon
Color	Black wordmark
	White wordmark
White						-
Black						-

Hello, fellow Wikipedians.

I have a question regarding the current MediaWiki logo: Does it meet the threshold of originality in the US?

The files mentioned above are labeled with the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, but I believe that they are consist mainly of geometric shapes and text, and thus do not meet the threshold of originality.

Considering this, I believe that they may be in the public domain (specifically {{PD-textlogo}}). I seek input from all of you to reach a consensus on this matter.

Thanks in advance, QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if this is the wrong venue, feel free to move this discussion if you feel that this is not the correct place for this discussion. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

QuickQuokka, you have a question about the applicability of copyright to certain images. Why don't you move it to Commons:Village pump/Copyright? -- Hoary (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hoary:  Done --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 11:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Notifying Serhio Magpie. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asclepias and Serhio Magpie: Based off of their userpage, I'm going to assume they're from Ukraine. There's no information explicitly available on the Commons page about the copyright rules there. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 13:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The logo was almost certainly published in the United States. Ukrainian law does not have to enter into consideration. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is not PD-textlogo, at least the colored version. Compare this with w:en:File:BP Helios logo.svg, which is copyright-eligible in the US (see Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices/2019#BP logo). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mdaniels5757: Sorry if I'm getting this wrong, but isn't BP the British Petroleum company? The threshold of originality in the UK is significantly lower than it in in the US, and (I assume) the copyrights to the MediaWiki logo belong to the Wikimedia Foundation, an American foundation, where the threshold of originality is higher. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@QuickQuokka I'm aware of that, and the BP logo falls above both COM:TOO US (according to WMF Legal, see Special:Diff/379284338) and of course COM:TOO UK. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

The legal complaint by BP was based on the laws of the United States and the decision of Wikimedia to delete the file was based on the laws of the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I would not say they are PD-textlogo. The logos do not look simple. It is not just text in an artistic font such as Coca-Cola. It is beyond a few circles, triangles, or squares: the fans interact. Yes, it is a regular circular pattern with a gradient thrown in. While I do not see a creative but subtle suggestion such as in the American Airlines eagle logo, I do not see the logo as so simple as to say it is PD-textlogo. Furthermore, there is no reason to push the point: the image has a free license: obey that license and there are no consequences; ignore the license and throw the dice. Glrx (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status of files from Lofter

Lofter is a Chinese social networking and blogging platform. It was launched by the company NetEase in 2011. Lofter allows users to create and share various forms of multimedia content, including photos, text, music, and videos. In Wikimedia Commons, images of Chinese artists Liu Yifei, Zhou Dongyu, Kris Wu and many more have been uploaded from Lofter. However, as I checked Lofter source of the files, I am unable to find the identification that marked these files under Creative Commons licensing. I suspect that some of these files, which are copyrighted by their main source, was uploaded in Lofter as a way of license laundering. For example, this image of actress Liu Yifei in the Chinese drama Paladin is likely copyrighted by the Tangren Media and Chinese Entertainment Shanghai, the creators of the show. I would request the WC administrators and reviewers to examine the files uploaded from Lofter and identify the copyright status of the files uploaded. Bookish Worm (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Probable low Philippines TOO

Out of some curiosity, I made a try to search for copyright-registered works of our country through our state copyright agency's database, which is currently available for works from 2021 up to present year. There are three buttons to choose from for years 2021, 2022, and 2023. What I did, is in every year, I searched through keyword G - Drawings, paintings, architectural works, sculpture, engraving, prints, lithography, or other works of art, models, or designs for work of art logo to search for possibly copyrighted logos registered from 2021 to 2023 (since logos are under category G in the list of copyrightable works).

From 2021 search, I found one registered logo protected by w:en:Iglesia ni Cristo religious denomination: INC Binhi Logo (certificate of registration no. G-2021-01153). Online search leads me to this YouTube video apparently from INC, and the logo can be seen at the end of the video. The logo uses some serified but relatively-simple typeface for "binhi" and a simple sans-serif typeface for "Iglesia ni Cristo". The only distinct part here is the leaf design inside "b". The logo is effectively copyrighted in the Philippines, but would it pass US TOO? If not, then this is one thing that sets Philippine TOO apart from US TOO.

Also from 2021 search, one result is Fastrust Services, Inc. Logo protected by its eponymous firm and with certificate of registration no. G-2021-01820. Online search leads me to their Facebook page. Pay attention to their logo, that I suspect may suffer negatively under US law because of its relatively-simple appearance.

From 2022 search, I found Photo Sikwate Logo by Roel S. Villaruel, and a search on Google brings me to their Facebook page (apparently, a group of professional photographers). What a surprise here: the logo is minimalistic in black background and this IMO fails US TOO, but passes copyright registration here in the Philippines! Certificate of registration no. 2022-00957-G.

Also from 2022 search, I found Geomax Solutions and Innovations Logo, by Keziah Ann D. Rosini (Certification no. 2022-01698-G). Online search brings me to their Facebook page. Kindly pay attention to their logo, which IMO may not qualify under US TOO (but is copyright-registered here).

From these four logos that are copyright-registered here, should this discovery (by me) make the Philippines a relatively low-TOO country? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

From my experience, a "sweat of the brow" standard is applied in the Philippines (but I may be wrong on my assessment of course). This means that a work can be eligible for copyright protection if there is a substantial amount of labor, effort, or investment involved, even if it lacks a significant level of creativity. This standard places emphasis on the effort put into creating the work rather than the level of originality or creativity. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status of this image

This passport image of the philosopher W. V. Quine is tagged as public domain because "Passport photos, while taken by a third party, are taken to government specifications and have no artistic merit that would transfer the copyright to the person operating the shutter." Is this actually an ok justification? If not then does anyone have any advice on whether a VRT ticket might be useful to open as the original justification was that W. V. Quine's son Douglas Boynton Quine gave permission to publish the work under a CC license - is it appropriate to assume he would own the copyright to the image? Thanks for any advice. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: If that public domain rationale were not sufficient, the only permission would matter is the permission of the photographer - the permission of any descendants or holders of the physical pictures is irrelevant unless the copyright were explicitly passed to them, which is very uncommon. It does appear that that rationale has some traction here, but is controversial, based on a quick scan of the search results. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo identitie-Said Kouachi.JPG has significant discussion. tl;dr: there likely isn't a firm answer to your question. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

3D license

Creators in Second Life are wondering if they can buy these files and sell buses in world as long as they don't sell versions that can be re-sold. | license 1957 School Bus 3D model rigged | CGTrader 2604:3D08:5E7A:6A00:C11:49A7:A6D9:F89 23:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• What, if anything, does this have to do with Wikimedia Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 00:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I think this is the best forum anywhere to get copyright thoughts. 2604:3D08:5E7A:6A00:C11:49A7:A6D9:F89 09:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
• This is not a copyright question (the content is unambiguously copyrighted), but a question about license terms. The license may or may not allow this use depending on the details of how content is packaged in Second Life, which nobody here is likely to be familiar with. You'll want to refer to section 21 of the license, in particular 21.2.(2) and 21.3. It probably comes down to how easy it is for purchasers to retrieve the original model. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright transferred

When a statement about a work reads "The copyright owner transferred his copyright in this work to the United States", some users reinterpret that transfer of copyright as being identical to "This work has been released into the public domain by its copyright holder". To me, those two notions seem quite different. Am I missing something? Is it considered ok to take those two notions as identical? -- Asclepias (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The first statement is unusual; I would be hesitant to make any assumptions about licensing based on it. Can you give an example of where you've seen this? Omphalographer (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Compare the information about the transfer of copyright there and the tagging as public domain there. (Photos in this case may be PD for another reason, e.g. no renewal of copyright, which could be checked, but it is a different question.) -- Asclepias (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking more into this in the web archive, it turns out that the problem was not a misinterpretation by Commons users (when that Commons template was created in 2006), but the problem is that the LoC changed its information about the copyright status of those works between 27 February 2012 and 29 February 2012. Presumably, they realized that the wording in their previous description, which seemed to imply PD, was an error and not conform to the actual situation, which is a transfer of copyright? -- Asclepias (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the intent here is that LOOK transferred its copyrights to the U.S. government, which has placed them in the public domain (or done the equivalent of CC-0, we probably don't deeply care which) along with the non-binding request that they “Not to be used for advertising or trade purposes.” That would apply to photos taken by LOOK staff photographers. However, they are warning you that LOOK also contained photographs that were not taken by their staff photographers, and that any of those presumably retain their copyrights. So: if there is a third-party photo credit, then it's most likely still in copyright; if there is a credit to a staff photographer, then it can be treated essentially the way we treat CC-0 (with the non-binding request presumably passed along, so we should have a specific template for this); and if the photo credit is missing, the precautionary principle would mean we have to treat it as if it were a third-party photographer, since that is a possibility. - Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no indication that the government released those works in the public domain. However, the copyrights on the works published before 1964 were probably not renewed. Then, on Commons, it would suffice to replace the rationale "PD because released by copyright owner" with the rationale "PD because copyright not renewed". It could leave as possibly problematic the works published after 1963. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

A much older version of the rights statement said that the "donor of the collection, Cowles Communications, Inc., dedicated to the public all rights it possessed in the collection", which is a different wording than now. Looks like it was changed on February 29, 2012 (the Feb 27 2012 version was the older wording). Normally, the Library of Congress seems to make public domain any rights it can, so it's usually an assumption there. Agreed that they aren't the same thing -- the U.S. federal government can exercise copyrights transferred to it, but the Library of Congress in particular seems oriented to placing stuff in the public domain as much as it can. Not sure what caused the LoC to change the wording there, or if the difference is meaningful for us. The donor restriction in 1971 would make more sense at the time, but unsure it is an enforceable restriction. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Help needed with a bunch of uploads

Please help solving this: Possibly the uploader is the artist himself, but there is no way to know since up to now, he has not been verified in any way. However, there are a number of different licensing issues, like some of the uploads are book covers or posters. Even if the uploader can prove he has the copyright, there might be licensing rights of his customers involved. I marked one obvious case (a book cover) as copyvio, but I am a bit at loss about how to handle all these others. Thanks, --2003:C0:8F14:FB00:F8A5:7A14:8B3C:D560 08:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Need help taking down an image that was uploaded in error

Can someone please explain how I'd need to properly tag this page for speedy deletion due to an uploading error? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:MRC_Logo_4Color.png&action=edit&section=1 JesseSeverson (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@JesseSeverson: Add this markup: {{speedydelete|1=Explanation}}. editing the explanation as appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Licensing status of software screenshots

Sorry if these are simple questions – researching this has been a major time sink for me so I'm just going to ask here. I am looking to upload some screenshot(s) of software licensed under GPL-3.0 for use on enwiki. My understanding is that those screenshots would be derivative works, so I would need to license them myself, but in a way that is compatible with GPL-3.0. Which licenses would satisfy that? Per this CC help page, CC BY-SA is only compatible one-way with GPL-3.0, and not in the direction I need. Would I need to just license the screenshots under GPL-3.0 too (seems not ideal), or is there another license I could permissibly use?

To further complicate things, the software I am looking to screenshot was a web app that is defunct as of earlier this week. The code is open source, so multiple people have forked it. Would those forks constitute derivative works of their own, so I would essentially be creating a derivative of a derivative by screenshotting? The forks have not, as of yet, make substantial changes, so I am not sure that they would qualify as "original creativity", but some sites online seem to disagree. (Specifically, I don't believe that the code changes would have any visual effect on the parts I'm screenshotting as compared to the original, now-defunct site.) If it is a derivative, how do I need to indicate that with license tagging and such? Would I need to indicate both software licenses (which should be the same, GPL-3.0) and both sets of copyright holders (again, excluding me, who would be a third copyright holder)? Perhaps I am overcomplicating this, but I would like to avoid any copyright issues down the line. Thanks for any help. PlanetJuice (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

In my view, taking a simple screenshot constitutes a "slavish reproduction" that does not give rise to new US copyright.

I think it would be necessary simply to license the screenshot under GPL-3 and then credit the original software.

If there is no difference in discernible output for the screenshot in question, then in my view, there is also no need to credit the maintainers/developers of the project fork. Felix QW (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this sufficient copyright licensing?

Just Stop Oil has a public collection of media from their events linked on their website. The link is to a Google Drive folder. The folder contains a document added 6 May 2023; it reads All media in this folder is captured by Just Stop Oil and is free to use, unless labelled with actual copyright holder i.e getty etc / Please credit: Just Stop Oil and provides their naming convention for filing. Items from this folder have been uploaded a few times to Commons before (see this one, for example). I wanted to ask before I upload more files as I don't want to make any large-scale changes that are bound to be reverted.

(If this is not sufficient, could someone kindly help me with how to ask JSO to provide the correct licensing info for their "free to use" photos?) Many thanks! Wracking (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The real intention of unspecific wording such as this may be difficult to discern. It must be evaluated within the context to decide if it is obvious enough that it can be equated to a free license, with all the attributes (irrevocability of the license, permission to modify the work, permission for everybody and for any use, etc). In doubt, caution should be exerted. In this case, IMHO, it's insufficient. The context does not provide information that would allow a certain conclusion of free license. Many elements add to the uncertainty. The permission sentence in the folder is restricted to "media in this folder", which is the folder with a few images of current events. What happens when the images are moved to another folder or otherwise removed from this paticular folder? Without indication, it must be assumed that they are not free to use anymore. Also, the general license for the website is non-commercial. More subjectively, they may not be willing to allow all their images to be modified and used for commercial advertising by oil companies. To request a free license, please see the page Commons:VRT. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response and explanation of the various nuances. It's very helpful! Wracking (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Malcolm X peeking through curtains by Don Charles

Resolved

The picture depicted in the poster on en:by any means necessary was first published in September 1964. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/25/obituaries/don-hogan-charles-dead.html) Which means it's public domain if there was no "notice". (claims that it was first published in Life magazine in march seem false. i have fully read all 4).

Notice was given, belonging to en:Johnson Publishing Company (see google books).

This puts the term at 90 years after death of the author (2017).

But ownership of their photographic collection has passed to a trust who wishes to make it available to the public. (https://archinect.com/news/article/150189136/a-plan-for-the-johnson-publishing-co-photo-archives-is-taking-shape, https://archinect.com/news/article/150148189/consortium-led-by-getty-trust-purchases-ebony-and-jet-photo-archives, https://www.getty.edu/news/inside-the-johnson-publishing-company-archive/)

How do i go about contacting them? is there a way for me to outsource this to wikipedians who are good at this stuff and already know what to do? Bart Terpstra (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• I have no idea where the Life magazine claim originally came from. The photo appears to be from Ebony. (I've now remarked the same at en:File talk:Malcolm X any means necessary.jpg.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
• @Bart Terpstr: They say they want to "facilitat[e] public access to the archive" [italics mine], but I see nothing saying that they intend to waive any rights. If you see an indication to that effect, can you please quote it? - Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  General good will to the public good.

  I think if a request is send they might approve it, but i have no idea how to go about it. Bart Terpstra (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

As I've looked more into this, the image in question might not have been in the September edition of ebony, I'm unsure.

It seems to be an alternate shot of his back (via reddit screengrab). Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

An issue from february 1993 claims to be a reprint of an article from September 1964 with "some of the same photos".

https://www.scribd.com/document/260300122/The-Mystery-of-Malcolm-X-Massaquoi# Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The september 1964 editions did use an alternate shot.

https://sapelosquare.com/2018/02/21/mystery-of-malcolm-x/ Bart Terpstra (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I jumped the gun, they have not digitized the photograph yet and might not until 2030.

The first images will be available this fall.

There is a chance it's not even in the archive.

https://www.getty.edu/news/johnson-publishing-company-archive-getty-smithsonian-digitization-project/ Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bart Terpstra @Jmabel: If there is a slight indication of getting the archive made freely available, I suppose contacting and seeking help from Wikimedia DC is worth and helpful. They might be able to give any type of institutional support. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

see also:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#c-TheAafi-20230709054900-Bart_Terpstra-20230708204500 Bart Terpstra (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Jubilee Church of Rome

Rome's w:en:Jubilee Church is a modern building, and its architect is alive. Under the spirit of Italian copyright law (COM:FOP Italy), most (if not all) of the existing photos of the church under commercial CC licensing here are not allowed as infringing architectural copyright. But as a closing admin at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Chiesa di Dio Padre Misericordioso claims, the photos are permitted to be distributed here as there is supposed permission backed up by MiBAC ({{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}). The structure is also claimed to be listed among the cultural heritage assets (even if it is not in public domain per se as a modern church by a still-living architect).

In fact, the enwiki article still uses a local image, probably sourced from a deleted photo which I tried to restore at this undeletion request, but after reasonable opposition from @Ankry and Nat: I withdrew. The opposition is valid, because as far as I know, permissions provided by MiBAC only apply to cultural heritage assets that are many years old already (that is, in public domain), in accordance withcultural heritage laws of Italy that regulate uses of photos of Colosseum, Florence Cathedral, Leaning Tower of Pisa, Venice City, and other public-domain works.

The question is, what should Commons treat to the modern Jubilee Church of Rome? As a modern building applicable to Italian copyright laws (no FOP in Italy), or as a cultural heritage asset in which {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} applies even if it is not in public domain and the architect is still alive? Ping participants in the DR: @Jbribeiro1, Blackcat, Ruthven, and A1Cafel: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: I attempted to request removals of the photos at Category:Chiesa di Dio Padre Misericordioso but was kept, citing {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} and the ministry's permission even if it is unclear if ministry had the blessing from Architect Meier to release licensing permits. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Perhaps the building is under COM:TOO? The threshold in Italy is quite high. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@A1Cafel a building touted by its architect as "the crown jewel of the Vicariato di Roma's Millennium project", treated as an ordinary structure in Italy? I don't think so. It seems there is a confusion between protected buildings (which I suspect are all public domain buildings staying true to the dictates of {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}) and copyrighted buildings in Italy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

My 2c: apart from my personal opinion that 99,999% of the 1900-2000s churches are irrelevant and not notable as for history and architectural value, that apart, I said, non-Italian commoners tend to take too dramatically seriously the no-FOP in Italy. In Italy the right of property always prevails over the intellectual property. If I own a villa designed by a famous architect, I have the right to photograph it and licence my photos freely. As explained here, buildings like schools, bridges, etc, owned by the State or its administrative subdivisions, are publicly owner and don't need any permission. Scultures, statues, and similar objects exposed in museums are instead protected by law. As for the churches, not being them publicly owned but property of the dioceses, the photographs are not free if the architect hasn't died for 70 years. -- Blackcat 11:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 Info Per WIPO Lex, Italian copyright law was amended in 2022. See this. Unfortunately the only existing copy on WIPO is in Italian language. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Blackcat I don't think your opinion will hold merit in Italian courts. Even in the most recent (2022) amendment / update of the Italian copyright law, architectural works are protected as objects of copyright under Article 2 (quoting the actual Italian text with emphasis):

Art. 2
In particolare sono comprese nella protezione:...
...4) le opere della scultura, della pittura, dell'arte del disegno, della incisione e delle arti figurative similari, compresa la scenografia;
5) i disegni e le opere dell'architettura;... ("architectural drawings and works")

Article 1 (in the new, 2022 law) states (with emphasis): Sono protette ai sensi di questa legge le opere dell'ingegno di carattere creativo che appartengono alla letteratura, alla musica, alle arti figurative, all'architettura, al teatro ed alla cinematografia, qualunque ne sia il modo o la forma di espressione. (Translated as: Intellectual works of a creative nature belonging to literature, music, figurative arts, architecture, theater and cinematography are protected under this law, whatever their mode or form of expression.)

Here the copyright law explicitly protects architecture, inclusive of building plans as well as actual works themselves. Any use of tradition can undermine Italy's obligations to protect architects' works as a signatory of Berne Convention which mandates protection of works of architecture. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

thus nothing new respect to what the law used to say before. So what's new? As for the court, I propose you a fair trade: I won't tutor you about how a Philippine's court work, and you know what I wish as trade. -- Blackcat 10:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Blackcat there is no need for you to tutor me. Based on February 10, 2021 Zoom meeting between a few Filipino Wikipedians and IPOPHL, until there is an explicit clause in Republic Act No. 8293, there is no FOP in the Philippines and FOP cannot be made existing by magic without supporting law to back it. Even two Philippine Star articles mention FOP as a provision that our copyright law needs. (this and this). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. As well, there's no need for you to tutor me about the Italian law system. As a matter of fact, the Italian High Court (sent. 11-08-2009, n. 18218) introduced the principle that the property of a non-replaceable good is a right which deserves more protection that the intellectual one. A building, a boat, a house, etc. are not a book or a record, which you only buy the right to read or hear indefinitely of, being nothing more than copies of the original. Publicly owned structures have always been reproduced for any purpose (either commercial or not), and there are not judicial cases in our country about illegal exploitment of the images of the said structure. I'm not telling you that copyright is not protected in our country, I'm telling that there are grey zones addressed with common sense by the professionals in law matters. -- Blackcat 10:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Italian High Court conflicting its own copyright law with respect to architecture. That seems interesting. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it's called 'legal interpretation', there's not conflict. -- Blackcat 10:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Blackcat legal interpretation that blatantly conflicts with first two articles of the Italian copyright act? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, what I just asked you about don't try to tutor one another about one's own judiciary systems? Clearly you're talking about things which you have no experience of. -- Blackcat 11:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Photo Studio long closed but his kin has granted free use/consent - Lee Youn Chin article

Dear Admin/Permissions,

The grandson (Anthony) of the studio where my grandfather's photo was taken in 1940-1941, has given consent to me via emails, cell text msgs.

File:LeeYounChin.jpg

I would like to use this in the article: Lee Youn Chin

Please advise how we can proceed.

Thanking you,

Setwikirec0 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Setwikirec0: Commons requires that they provide a specific license, as described at COM:L. (The key is that they must grant explicit permission for derivative works and commercial use.) Several licenses are acceptable; we usually recommend {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} or {{Cc-by-4.0}}. COM:VRT explains how they can provide that permission (via email).
• What you have so far doesn't suffice. "Free use" really doesn't mean anything in particular, and also we need the communication to come directly from the rights-holder to VRT, since anyone could say, "I have permission to upload this." - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks and have a great day (music too!), Jmabel! Setwikirec0 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• This is old enough, no need for a permission. I added the appropriate licenses: {{PD-India}} {{PD-1996}}. Yann (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Dear Yann, you really did? Thank you so much!! How do I see the details of the licence you added? I can now use the photo in the article!! Please let me know if this is real. I'm grateful to you! Setwikirec0 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Yann, I found the license in the photo info details. My best to you and thanks again! Setwikirec0 (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Setwikirec0: Now used on en:Lee Youn Chin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

What a beautiful thing you did Andy, just like Yann! Thank you very much! Have a great day! I know I will :)) Setwikirec0 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Dear User:Yann and User:Pigsonthewing, Many THANKS!! Setwikirec0 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Games trailers

I've noticed that Warner Bros. has been releasing their promotional materials under the standard CC BY 3.0 license on YouTube ({{YouTube CC-BY}}). This has been consistent for at least some years (Back 4 Blood [2019], Hogwarts Legacy [2023], Mortal Kombat 1 [TBA]), which would mean that the licensing is intended, and not a mistake. Would it be okay to upload them to Wikimedia Commons? Lugamo94 (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It depends whther the YouTube account in question has permission to upload them under said license. Borysk5 (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The accounts seem genuine, so I am uploading File:Hogwarts Legacy – Official 4K Reveal Trailer.webm. Yann (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Hogwarts Legacy. Yann (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Map made in 1716 is it public domain?

This map was made in 1716 by Gabriel Bodenehr (1664-1758). The website says CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 license. However, since it was made so long ago is it in the public domain? -Artanisen (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It is in the public domain. There is no base for the copyright / license claim, especially as the David Rumsey Historical Map Collection where the reproduction was made is apparently located in the United States, and for US reproductions, we have Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (and in the EU, we now have an even better base since 2019, as Article 14 of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market expressly states that reproductions of works of visual art that are in the public domain cannot be subject to copyright or related rights, unless the reproduction is an original creative work). If you are concerned because of the 3D elements of the reproduction, you can crop them away. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Artanisen: I imported the file from the original source, which is much higher resolution: File:Die Niederland Nach denen XVII Provincien Eingetheilet (11170024).jpg. Could you add categories please? Yann (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Gestumblindi. @Yann, thanks, but I already uploaded the map here. It's cropped (the border), horizontally aligned and a smaller file size. So I think yours could be deleted or maybe keep it as a backup. -Artanisen (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Artanisen: Fine. It is always useful to have the original. See also File:Die Niederland Nach denen XVII Provincien Eingetheilet (11170024).png. I created Category:Atlas Curieux oder Neuer und Compendieuser Atlas. We probably need a Wikidata item for this. Yann (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Kakuda city rice paddy art 2023

In Kakuda city, Japan, a team of farmers is currently working on a special rice paddy art that features two-time Olympic figure skating champion Yuzuru Hanyu and daimyo Date Masamune from the 17th century. Here is an article about the latest status of the project: TBS News Japan, July 7

Some fellow photographers plan to travel to Kakuda city and take pictures for Wikimedia Commons of that rice field this summer. However, before they do that, we wanted to ask how the current copyright situation is. I noticed that this image category is flagged with the {{NoFoP-Japan}} copyright template.

Update: according to this deletion discussion, tanbo art is not considered as a form of art under Japanese copyright law and is hence not affected by section 46 of the copyright law. If that is the case, the warning template may be removed from the affected categories? Henni147 (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Market graphs

• Copyvio or threshold of originality = PD?

Zindra Lord (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Doubtful images (probably not OK)

I have uploaded some images to Commons with {{PD-Italy}} believing they were in public domain since 20 years after its creation; I've now discovered they cannot be uploaded on Commons if they were created after 1976. the list is this (I have already tagged them with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}):

You can delete them with {{Speedy delete}} if you think it's right. Sorry. -- Carnby (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Carnby: It's fine to nominate them for deletion. But the template Not-PD-US-URAA is only for works that have a restored copyright. It does not apply to several of those photos, those published after 28 February 1989, which were always copyrighted in the U.S. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Carnby: If you tag uploads with G7 after the week allocated for G7, e.g. [1], the admins may not know what the request is really about. For the uploads older than a week, please use a rationale for speedy delete explaining the copyright reason. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Public domain logo

Im not sure if this logo is copyrighted or not because it contains the Disney logo, is it copyrighted because if not, i will transfer it to commons, i tried asking in the english wikipedia teahouse then someone said to ask here, so here i am. Notrealname1234 (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• That swoosh to the right of "Premier" gives me pause in terms of the threshold of originality. Looks comparable to File:An Extremely Goofy Movie logo.webp, though, which we've accepted. I suggest waiting for a few more opinions before presuming it's OK. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not much different in terms of ToO from File:Disney_Plus_Premier_Access_(2020-2021).svg. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

File needs a rev del my original upload

File:Ukraine's Nobel laureate Oleksandra Matviichuk at the Kyiv Security Forum, Jan 23, 2023 - 52666649346.jpg

I proactively cropped my recent upload of a useful photo of a Nobel laureate Per COM:CROP -

"Blurring, cropping or otherwise obscuring unfree elements and any other unacceptable parts (like sensitive personal information) that would otherwise result in deletion or a deletion request, provided that the file is still useful and in scope after the offending element has been obscured."

Please, rev del old version. Thank you, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Rosenzweig τ 22:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action. -- Ooligan (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Rosenzweig τ 14:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia's threshold of originality

There's nothing on COM:Saudi Arabia about the country's TOO so I'm wondering whether files like File:Saudi Arabia national football team logo.svg, File:Al-Ahli FC.png, File:Flag of the Special Security Unit (Saudi Arabia).svg and File:Saudi Arabian Football Federation Logo.svg are OK to treat as "PD-logo", even when it's not clear that they would be "PD-logo" per COM:TOO US. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly I don't know about Saudi Arabia. But things must be free in both the U.S. and the source country for one reason or another to be hosted on Commons. (See Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law.) I think these are above COM:TOO US, and have tagged them accordingly. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this. FWIW, I was aware of the "interaction" you mentioned above, but just wanted some other feedback before starting a DR about the files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Old file moved across from en:wiki

File:Least grebe.jpg was moved to Commons from en:wiki (same filename, deleted after the move to Commons) in 2007, but without any author information. Can someone with admin rights at en:wiki look at the deleted original there, to see if there is any author/uploader info that wasn't copied across? If there is none, should it be nominated for deletion as missing essential source information? It is in use on a lot of pages, though. - MPF (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I added data for date and author per deleted text at en:File:Least_grebe.jpg; the date was slightly different from that contained in Exif. There was no info about location. Mindmatrix 22:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mindmatrix: Excellent, thanks! From that, I looked at the author's en page, and it says there that he took it at Edinburg, Texas; I'll add that too - MPF (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyrighted documents where copyright vanished

Hello dear community,

I have stumbled across scans of old documents and drawings of Hof (Saale) that I would like to transfer to Commons. However, these are under non-commercial licenses. However, I have doubts whether these licenses are applicable because the works depicted no longer have copyright protection (19th century and older, see Template:PD-OLD), and as far as I know no new copyright protection can be claimed by the process of scanning (Template:PD-Scan). Mainly it contains scans of old documents and books, but also old drawings and possibly photos. Or are there any blunders you could put in? What is your opinion?

The links in question (selection):

1. https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/search?query=%28Hof+%28Saale%29%29&filter=date_facet%3A%5B0550-01-01+TO+1910-07-11%5D
2. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb00050992
3. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb11565902
4. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb11565901
5. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb11565900
6. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb11565888
7. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb11565889
8. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb11565898
9. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb11565891
10. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb11561754
11. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb11565899
12. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb11448041
13. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb11566878
14. https://mdz-nbn-resolving.de/details:bsb11355365
15. https://www.europeana.eu/de/item/2064108/Museu_ProvidedCHO_Kupferstichkabinett__Staatliche_Museen_zu_Berlin_DE_MUS_018511_1503603
16. etc.

Thank you very much and regards, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The copyright claim is bogus. These documents are in the public since long. You can upload them to Commons with {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} (general case), or another license, depending on the country of origin. Yann (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I assume they are from Germany :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Then documents from before 1870 can use {{PD-old-70-expired}} as license. Yann (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright

Are these images of a 270-year-old manuscript, published in a copyrighted work about sixty years ago, copyrighted? TrangaBellam (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I do think that [t]his image is in the public domain because it is a mere mechanical scan or photocopy of a public domain original, or – from the available evidence – is so similar to such a scan or photocopy that no copyright protection can be expected to arise applies. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, no issue with these images. You can upload them to Commons with {{PD-scan|PD-old-100-expired}}. Please give the source, date, author if possible. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Status of European Union Geographical indications and quality scheme logos

There are some logos on Commons representing European Union Geographical indications and quality schemes:

• 
  vector
• 
  vector
• 
  raster
• 
  raster
• 
  raster
• 
  raster
• 
  raster
• 
  raster
• 
  raster

They have been uploaded with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} license. Are they OK?

• 
  raster
• 
  raster
• 
  raster

These have been uploaded with a wrong license and, in my opinion, they should be deleted (or can we change license?) -- Carnby (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• File:Logo-tsg el.png (the one without the symbol in the center) is clearly fine as textlogo. The others I'm not sure. - Jmabel ! talk 14:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So the problem could be the stylized "hills" in the center?--Carnby (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That's certainly how I see it. I have no idea whether those are enough to give this copyright, and who would hold that copyright. I'm hoping someone else will weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 17:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the page where they can be found. Honestly I'm not able to find anything about their copyright status.--Carnby (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Creative Commons status on Internet Archive uploads

I'm wondering if Internet Archive uploads like this one ("Possible copyright status: Public Domain" from a reputable uploader) have been uploaded with a usable Creative Commons status. I noticed this upload; is this a proper tag, or is there one? Star Garnet (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any CC license there, and I don't think there is one. A 2006 publication by the US state of Illinois is also not in the public domain, so the file you linked is a copyvio IMO. --Rosenzweig τ 13:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Licensing: 1958 painting, US, painter d. 1970

I imported this file from Wikipedia (where it was tagged, I believe erroneously, with CC0): File:First Station Newman.jpeg. Did I do it correctly, and is the licensing okay? The file was apparently ripped from the National Gallery of Art website which offers download for some images but not all of them, and this is one of the files that is explicitly marked as not available for download. -- Alalch E. (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be no basis for CC0. You tagged it as {{PD-US-no notice}}, presumably because there is no copyright notice on the painting. But that, by itself, is not sufficient to show that the work was published without copyright notice. Publication means that the public is able to acquire dominion over the work or copies of it. For works of fine art like paintings, that may not happen until long after the work's creation, if ever. In this case, we can check the "Exhibition History" tab on the NGA page to see instances where the work may have been published. The first one listed is a 1966 exhibition at the Guggenheim. I found the catalog for that exhibition, which contains a full-page color reproduction of the painting. There is no copyright notice in the catalog (only an "all rights reserved", which is not a valid copyright notice under U.S. law). So I think you have the correct assertion of public domain status, but the information above should be added to show that the assertion is true. Toohool (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. Would you add the extra information yourself so that I may see how best to do that myself in the future.Alalch E. (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I did it myself.Alalch E. (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Archives of City of Nice, France

The official website of archives of city of Nice includes photographs taken by municipal services of Nice, France. Some of which have a description in which it is stated: "Conditions d'utilisation : Libre" ("conditions d'utilisation" = terms of use) : [2] Are those photographs could be uploaded here ? Assalit (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No. If the copyright holder is the city of Nice, these will be in the public domain 70 years after the first publication, so 2043 at the earliest. If the copyright holder is a person, it could be much longer. Yann (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Assalit: In addition to what Yann said, you can ask the city authorities to confirm that a free licence, compatible Commons, applies. See COM:VRT for the process they should follow. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about copyright

Moved from Commons:Help desk#Question about copyright. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Can/does a specific vectorization of a logo (e.g. the SVG source code) Sorry if this is a bit of a dumb question: Can/d Sorry if this is a bit of a dumb question: Does a specific vectorization of a logo (e.g. the SVG source code) have a separate license to the logo itself (e.g. the rendering of that SVG)?

If I upload another person's vectorization of a logo (and also crediting them), could that be a copyvio? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Btw sorry if this is a dumb question with an obvious answer. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 12:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The SVG file can be copyrighted. Think of it this way: you are copying a hunk of code, and code can be copyrighted. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Higher-resolution after Flickr licence change

User:JWilz12345 has just reverted my upload of a higher resolution version of File:Manila by night.jpg, from Flickr, with an edit summary "the irrevocable CC license only applies to the copy of the file as it was imported here. The higher/original resolution copies no longer apply as these are governed by restrictive licensing; basis: Template:Flickr-change-of-license/doc". I can see nothing on the latter page which justifies this claim. Is my upload valid, and if not, why not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: quoting the latter page, which is actually an excerpt from CC FAQ, with emphases added: "Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable. This means that you cannot stop someone, who has obtained your work under a Creative Commons license, from using the work according to that license. You can stop distributing your work under a Creative Commons license at any time you wish; but this will not withdraw any copies of your work that already exist under a Creative Commons license from circulation, be they verbatim copies, copies included in collective works and/or adaptations of your work. So you need to think carefully when choosing a Creative Commons license to make sure that you are happy for people to be using your work consistent with the terms of the license, even if you later stop distributing your work." The original author (in this case, Filipino Flickr user Vanessa David) can stop their distribution of commercial CC license for current and future uses, but they cannot order users of existing copies or derivative works (in this case we, Wikimedia) to withdraw or take down those copies or derivatives since those copies became possible through the earlier free license that was formerly applied to the file (since CC licenses cannot be revoked of course). This means we can still continue to host imported Flickr files. We can also freely modify the image based on the existing import we have, but we cannot upload overwrite the existing import with original or higher resolutions coming from Flickr image as these are now governed by the unfree license. Unless the Flickr author reinstates the use of free license, we cannot import original or higher resolution version of the image. Note I already asked about this before here, now archived at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/08#Question regarding certain Flickr pictures hosted here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that I already checked the Wayback Machine in August 2020, after getting response from King of Hearts. I don't see webpage captures that show the Flickr file as under free CC license, which means when the Wayback Machine began scanning the Flickr file, it was already under the unfree license then. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The flickr license history records the license change as done on 4 April 2009. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asclepias yep. Unfortunately, Wayback Machine's scanning of the Flickr file only shows that the earliest web capture was in April 2016. This means every instance of higher resolution version of the Flickr photo, including archived copies on Wayback Machine, are now regulated by the unfree license, and we cannot import that higher resolution version here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I was looking for others' opinions rather than asking you to restate yours. But what you have quoted does not mean that the higher resolution version was not under a non-revocable free licence at the same time as the lower resolution version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It's a difficult question. It is possible that higher-resolution photos may have separate copyright protection from lower-resolution versions. At any rate, I think we generally respect an author's desire to do that, and only take the resolutions explicitly licensed that way. This one is... slightly different than that, though. It looks like it was originally uploaded as CC-BY-2.0. Per the Flickr license history, the author changed the license to All Rights Reserved on Flickr in 2009, so they stopped distributing under free licenses at that time. In all likelihood, the higher-resolution one was available at the time, but for whatever reason that was not uploaded. So, our exploitation which dates from that period is the lower-resolution one. I'm not sure we have absolute proof the higher resolution one was available then, though. Copying a version from that source now means you are copying it without an explicit license -- the author is free to stop distributing under the free license, which they did in 2009. Versions already distributed retain the original license, irrevocably, but uploading a new version now is technically a new exploitation, and it would be unlicensed (if there is a copyright on the higher-res version). As a technical matter, if no copies were actually distributed under the free license at the time, then there are no copies which have that license attached anymore. If we find a higher-res copy elsewhere which was taken from the Flickr site at the time, that would be OK. There is nothing cut and dried about this, but the Flickr license history should be used to validate actions taken at the time, not permit uploads of images which once were marked that way but no longer. This is admittedly a much closer call than most, as odds (from a couple different perspectives) are it would be OK, but it's not cut and dried so I can understand the reversion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Licenses of miniscule cycling jersy icons

Back in 2006, I created and uploaded a few SVG icons of cycling jerseys to use in template. Examples include File:Jersey yellow.svg (), File:Jersey red number.svg () and File:Jersey polkadot.svg (). I uploaded them CC-BY-SA 2.5+GFDL at the time. They are used in many cycling templates on many wikis. I mostly forgot about them afterwards.

This year, the price for the most competetive rider in the Tour de France changed from a red to a beige number. I remembered my Icons, then wanted to upload a beige numbered one and was happy that user:GAN had already made File:Jersey_beige_number.svg ().

However, what I am not happy about is that is sourced as "own work" by user:GAN, without any mention to my original icon. When looking at Category:SVG cycling jerseys I see that most (not all: this has a slighly different shape and neck line) icons there seem to be derivatives of my work, having the exact same shape of the t-shirt outline. Some (examples: 1, 2) have made a reference to my original works (sometimes with link to that item, somtimes not) but most are without any mention to my work.

I now have checked 25 images in the Category:SVG cycling jerseys, found

• 5 which properly attributed my work (though some without link)
• 4 that were my own work
• 15 that claimed "own work"
• 1 that properly attributed some other image as the base. That other image was claimed as own work.

I would like to notify all uploaders and request them to put in a link to my work (and those that chose an incompatible license, to re-license their images). Is that the right course of action? What if they don't respond or do but don't comply?

Note that I would not want all these images deleted at all - they are good quality images, and I am perfectly ok with them being used, just with a proper link to my original image. For the images that did properly attribute my work but without a link, is it ok to change the image description page with the addition of the link? Thx IIVQ (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• @IIVQ: You can write what you need to add (I write through a translator) - I will add it. Or, if the rules allow, you can add the necessary information to this image yourself. When I downloaded to "commons" I chose from the available options. — GAN (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright Protection all License are place

ADMIN Wiki Own many Domain Talk Page Disallowed @Actor at volation to Rule code conduction please follow the rules we like to keep this site up for everyone for yrs to come 2601:603:7F:9D0:58EF:D3A4:EB12:72F7 20:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• That's pretty much incomprehensible. If there is some language you write better than English, please try writing this again in that language. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This Page Is"nt Allowed for vistor to Copy reading only

All license information are connected to Admin page, miss conduction volation will be band not allowed api lock out please use the website comfortably and pleas report any miss conduction. <♤£♡¥♤> 2601:603:7F:9D0:58EF:D3A4:EB12:72F7 20:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• That's pretty much incomprehensible. If there is some language you write better than English, please try writing this again in that language. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

How to handle the thousands of files in Category:ODbL OpenStreetMap without the required attribution attached to the maps?

There are probably thousands of files in Category:ODbL OpenStreetMap which have not the required attribution attached to the maps. I now made a deletion request for one, but is there a procedure for, is every new OpenStreetMap in Commons checked for this requirement? JopkeB (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Can admin find a bot maker to just delete all that don't meet attribution standards? Rules are rules, no DR needed, just speedy the batch. Zindra Lord (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Do not make stupid statement. These files are under a free license. If something is not properly attributed, fix that. Yann (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say that the concerning files should all be equipped with {{OpenStreetMap}}, which includes the copyright annotations --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Zindra Lord: I think it is hard to do it with a bot. The attribution should be on the map itself (see for instance File:20160726 OSM-Bonamoussadi.png on the bottom right corner), and I doubt whether a bot can "see" whether that is on it or not.
• @Yann: It is not easy to fix this. All maps involved should be uploaded again, but now with the contribution on it. A sample showed me that there are far more maps without the contribution than with it.
• @PantheraLeo1359531: {{OpenStreetMap}} will not do the thrick, it is not the files that lack the contribution, but the maps itself.

JopkeB (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand, the needed information are included in the file description. It is discouraged on Commons to put copyright information in graphic files itself, this is why they are cropped out and put in the file description. They must be credited if reused, but I don't get the point sorry. Is there a point that the maps MUST include this information? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think so, see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Guidelines#Static_images. JopkeB (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, the attribution may be placed adjacent to the map or on a splash screen or pop-up shown when a user starts the app, device, website, etc. sounds for me that an attribution directly near the map is adequate, like performed on Commons --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think @Mateusz Konieczny: can probably provide an answer and solution to this since he's a member of OpenStreetMap's Licensing Working Group. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I am not a member of OpenStreetMap's Licensing Working Group though I can try to help (IANAL, comment made in a personal capacity, not an official statement) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Guidelines#Static_images does NOT require attribution to be specifically directly on image itself, though it would make things easier for reusers which are obligated to attribute as required by ODBL ("You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License."). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

BTW, {{OpenStreetMap}} claims "Map tiles are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license (CC-BY-SA 2.0)." which applied only to some map tiles and only for some time (though it applied to default map style and for quite long time, nevertheless is not true in general). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Copyright and privacy

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rza_Tal%C4%B1bov

This article is about me and I request its removal. I am ready for any participation to prove myself. Please delete all information in this category. Wikicosu (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Comment I blocked Wikicosu for socking. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rza Talıbov (şəxsi foto).jpg and Special:Contributions/Elshad_Iman_(Elşad_İman). Yann (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: Another user also claims to be the same person: [3] (per Google Translate). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Blocked as well. Yann (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Uploader = artist... or maybe not

Hi, we are currently dealing with an article on a German artist that included tons of pictures. Now I am not sure what to make of these pictures:

• They were uploaded by a user with the name of the artist, so everything may be all right.
• However, this user has not been verified in any way, neither here nor on the German language WP. It seems likely that this is him, but we have no way of knowing for sure.
• On his website, the artist claims all rights to his pictures and excludes any use without his explicit written permission. Not sure how that would go together with a CC licensing.

I would have addressed the user on his talk page, but as he has not been active in either project for years, that seems somewhat useless. The easiest way of course would be to simply e-mail the artist and ask him directly if this is his account, and if he is o.k. with a CC licensing. I personally would rather not extend my Wikipedia activities into Real Life, but maybe someone does not mind. Or maybe you have a better idea how to handle this. Thanks, --2003:C0:8F21:E100:EC08:4587:98D0:C555 23:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It would probably be best if that email were written by a native German speaker. Any volunteers? - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I can help with that if you like:

Sehr geehrter Herr Pümpel,

Auf Wikimedia Commons wurden von einem Nutzer mit Namen "Norbert Pümpel" zahlreiche Bilder zahlreiche Bilder (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Norbert_P%C3%BCmpel) von Ihren Werken unter der Lizenz Creative Commons 3.0 bzw. Creative Commons 4.0 hochgeladen. Dies steht im Widerspruch zum Impressum Ihrer Website, dass Ihre Bilder "ohne Erlaubnis des Betreibers dieser Website weder reproduziert noch öffentlich weitergegeben oder für gewerbliche Zwecke benutzt werden" dürfen.

Können Sie bestätigen, dass 1. das Nutzerkonto "Norbert Pümpel" von Ihnen selber angelegt wurde und dass Sie 2. mit der Veröffentlichung unter Creative-Commons-Lizenz inklusive der damit verbundenen freien Nutzung einverstanden sind? Falls nicht, müssen Ihre Bilder zum Schutz Ihrer Rechte auf Wikimedia Commons gelöscht werden.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

(Signature)

Does that help? --2003:C0:8F37:2200:B07A:24E6:A7CF:30E2 08:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

It helps somewhat, but it doesn't explain to him how to write to the Volunteer Response Team to clarify the matter. - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Help with Brazilian senate pictures

Hi. First question is, can someone tell me if pictures produced and published by the en:Senate of Brazil are free to be used here? I saw that as per Template:PD-Brazil-Gov, the pictures produced by the Brazilian government are. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 20:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

In my reading of that template, only Brazilian government images from before 1983 are free to be used here. This should also apply to images of the Brazilian senate, in my view. Felix QW (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Legal basis for PD-KenyaGov

Hi all. There exists a template {{PD-KenyaGov}}, but per their Copyright Act [4] and COM:Kenya I see no provision allowing free use of government work. Am I missing something, or do we need a DR? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This concern was similarly aired by Alifazal at Template talk:PD-KenyaGov. Note that Nairobi123 created the template in 2013. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I've ever seen that template. The law seems like they have a 50-year copyright for government works. The previous law looks similar in the government works section (and generally modified from older UK laws), and seemed to give a 50 year from publication term for audiovisual works and photographs, and 25 years from publication for literary, musical and artistic works. If those had expired before the 2001 law came into effect, I think they remained PD. But nothing to give US-style immediate PD status. Was this simply blindly copied from a PD-USGov template? Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

TOO for figure - Currently CC but should it be in PD instead?

File:Un3373.jpg I believe that this image do not cross the TOO and should be licensed under PD-textlogo or PD-ineligible instead. Staph aureus (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Agree. That is below TOO anywhere. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Are these album covers too simple and PD?

Stumbled upon some very simple looking album covers, that are currently under fair use on Wikipedia. Would these not fall under {{PD-simple}}, {{PD-text}} or {{PD-ineligible}} - as these are just text on plain backgrounds or of simple designs? Find it hard to believe these pass COM:TOO, as works originating from the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Space_Song_cover.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beach_House_-_Depression_Cherry.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foo_Fighters_-_But_Here_We_Are.png

Would love some input from others before making any moves. Thanks. PascalHD (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say yes for all three, at least per COM:TOO US. Even if they're not OK for Commons because their country of first publication turns out to be somewhere with a lower TOO than the US, I would still think they would be good candidates to convert to en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly for local use on English Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Almost certainly the first two for the US, but unsure about the Foo Fighters one -- it's a bit hard to see, but there seem to be some elements on there, not just a solid color or straight lines. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Clindberg and PascalHD: My eyesight isn't as good as it once was, but zooming up on the Foo Fighter's covers doesn't make it seem like it would be anything creative enough to be eligible for copyright protection. In the bottom right corner, the title of the album can be found in really light gray text. There is a bit of a faded color splash across the center of the cover that might be a landscape scene of some sort, but it's really hard to make out even after zooming in a lot. I'm wondering whether the cover is actually someone's abstract painting that the band either had done as a work-for-hire or simply got permission to use. It's relevant perhaps to know that the band is selling T-shirts showing the album cover here which might mean there's something more to this cover than meets the eye. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

To me, the fading lines of varying length, suggestive of abstract art, seem sufficient to push the Foo Fighters cover beyond the "clearly below US ToO" boundary. Felix QW (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Vinamilk (2023).png

 You are invited to join the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo Vinamilk (2023).png. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added a link to this DR because it partly involves an assessment of Vietnam's TOO and there's nothing about this in COM:Vietnam. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Older 3D model

I took a few photos of a 3-dimensional model of Mount Rainier that is in the old Administration Building at Longmire in Mount Rainier National Park. I'm pretty certain the model is from before 1989 (probably more like 1950s or 1960s) and would be astounded if anyone even gave a thought to copyright at the time: it is certainly not marked for copyright, and was almost certainly never registered. I saw either this or a similar model at the Park when I visited as a child in the 1960s, but of course I can't prove it's the same one. And, of course, lacking even that basic information, I have no idea whether it may have been made by a federal government employee, another possible basis for PD. In short, I could imaginably be wrong about it being in the public domain. I'd like to upload the images here, but I concede that there is a small chance that model is copyrighted. (I tried some quick online research to see if I could find anything definitive about when the model dates from, etc., but I can't.)

Anyone see a way out of this, or should I just skip it? - Jmabel ! talk 22:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Uploaded one so that people can have a sense of what I'm talking about; I realize this may need to be deleted: File:Longmire - Administration Building interior 03.jpg - Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Old pic but published in 2012

This pic was created on January 6, 1911 but the decscription states it was (likely) scanned from a book published in 2012. Is it right or should it be deleted?-- Carnby (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Being a picture from Italy, it is {{PD-Italy}} + {{PD-1996}}. License fixed. Yann (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes it was shot in Italy, but as far as we know it wasn't published before 2012. I thought {{PD-1996}} was only suitable for scanned pictures published before 31 December 1978. Was I wrong?--Carnby (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The template PD-1996 is irrelevant for something first published in the 2006 book. But this source references a publication of this photo in 1974 in Il Libro Azzurro del Calcio Italiano, which is also mentioned in the references section on page 103 of the 2006 book from where this Commons file was scanned. It is also plausible that the photo was published soon after its creation. For the purposes of Commons, a reference to the 1974 publication could do, if that publication did not meet the copyright requirements of the U.S. law. Someone could try to find an earlier publication or if the 1974 publication references an earlier source for the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.-- Carnby (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Moldovan FOP revisited

Revisiting COM:FOP Moldova, I think even 2D works like murals are OK. Even in the newest version of their law (see this), Article 57(h), their FOP legal right, states "use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, intended for permanent location in public places." The term "such as", in my opinion, gives only examples. Your thoughts @everyone? (I hope there is a way to ping all non-bot users who are not blocked or not deceased) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Upon checking the archives (I could remember I opened this topic before), I took a look at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/12#FOP Moldova seems to not limit 2D works. But it seems there is no conclusive reply in that thread. I hope a more conclusive reply is given in this new thread. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

For the FOP clause (Article 57(h)) in both Romanian and Russian languages:

"h) utilizarea operelor, cum ar fi lucrări de arhitectură sau sculptură, destinate amplasării permanente în locuri publice;" _ Romanian text (via Romanian version at the official site)

"h) использование таких произведений, как архитектурные работы или скульптура, предназначенные для постоянного размещения в общественных местах;" _ Russian text (via Russian version at the official site)

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

... which perfectly matches the English-language translation given above, and is equally unclear about 2D works. - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel but I think 2D works are covered as long as these are permanently located in public places. This is similar to Portuguese FOP wording. Portuguese FOP appears to be inspired from EU standards, which is also the model used by FOP clause of Moldova as a badis. Per w:en:Freedom of panorama#Former USSR countries, the Moldovan FOP as well as the rest of their copyright law was approximated to EU standards. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Virginia

I'm trying to figure out whether Virginia is one of the US states that has state employees' work in commission of their employment granted Creative Commons licensing; I can find this for example, but the wording is confusing to me. I do not see a template available but I am new to this project. Much thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virginia Courtsesan (talk • contribs)

• @Virginia Courtsesan: what you've linked can be summarized as if work done by state employees results in something patentable or copyrightable, those intellectual property rights belong to the State of Virginia. State agencies are basically free to license those rights. Certainly this is not anything close to a CC license, let alone public domain, but it does mean that a state agency can issue such a license o such work. - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Flickr washing?

This File:Cassiano Araújo dos Santos “Dos Santos”.jpg is very similar/same image uploaded here and deleted before. The uploader was, even, blocked for uploadling copyvios. However, this particular image was sourced from Flickr. Nevertheless, the image was uploaded on Flickr on the same day it was uploaded here. It looks like the uploader uploaded the image on Flickr only to uploaded it here later and then bypass scrutiny. Could this be a case of COM:FLICKRWASHING? Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 21:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"No facebook" in permission block?

Recently I've stumbled upon File:NN Old Fair Cathedral 08-2016 img2.jpg which in permission block says:

 Free usage of the photo, no need to ask for approval. Simply attribute the author

and also links to Free Art License. So far so good. However, then there is also a big logo with Facebook crossed over with red line. Now, I am confused.

• Can one post it to facebook (not that I intend to, not having account there, but were I to use it I'd have to pass the restrictions downstream too) as this is just an author's preference of "Please do not post it on Facebook", or
• is that intended to legally modify the licenses mentioned before (in which case I would suggest not linking to those licenses at all, but instead create a separate license with such no-facebook restrictions built-in).

Clicking on that File:No Facebook.svg unfortunately produces no more info. Its "caption" is empty, and it seems its "description" is "alt text" (e.g. for blind persons), but most importantly it misses the explanation (or link to explanation, if bigger) exactly what it is supposed to mean and what restrictions (if any) it adds. Can anyone clarify/update that file? Mnalis (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Another, even more confusing example is File:Malus-Holsteiner-Cox.jpg which purports to be licensed under CC-By-SA 2.0 (Germany) license, but then links to same logo with explanation:

> This file has been released under a license which is incompatible with Facebook's licensing terms. It is not permitted to upload this file to Facebook.

Which at least attempt to link to explanation page (but the link is broken); but which also seems to be contrary to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal/CC_BY-SA_licenses_and_social_media which seems to say that it "does not violate the CC license to upload third-party material to social media"? Shouldn't ToS (and other law's like panaroma laws, privacy laws etc) interpretation and compliance be responsibility of the user of those services (who might be many times removed from commons.wikimedia.org content page itself), and not related to copyright license owner giving permissions (which I've understand permissions section is about)? Should Wikimedia Commons (much less its users!) even attempt providing such legal interpretation (if that is what it seems to be) of all popular use case combinations for all jurisdictions worldwide?

Perhaps @Steschke: and @Lucas Oriolo Rodrigues: (of referenced pictures) would like to chime in too? Mnalis (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't checked lately, but Facebook used to have some license requirements incompatible with a free license. Yann (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, as Yann says. You can always link the Commons page from Facebook, which will effectively make the image visible on Facebook, but actually uploading an image to Facebook is not possible without violating license terms that require any sort of photo credit. When you upload an image to Facebook, you agree to grant Facebook "a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content" without any requirement for Facebook to credit the work.

Note that this is true whether they say "no facebook" or not. You cannot use a license that requires an image credit as a basis to upload to Facebook, even if you give an otherwise appropriate credit when you post. By posting to Facebook you are granting them a license to use the work without crediting it, and you cannot legally do this with someone else's work without their permission. Not that people don't do it all the time, but as you probably know there are a ton of copyvios on the web in general, and Facebook in particular. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Nofacebook, Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates. About a hundred thousend files used this templates before they were deleted. Will you make an undelete request @Jmabel? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO these deletions were an error. I would support undeletion. FYI, all my pictures use User:Yann/License, which explicitely says "It is not allowed to upload this file to Facebook.". Yann (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mnalis, Jmabel, and Yann: well, the legal team of Wikimedia Foundation expressed a different opinion. The talk page forum at meta:Talk:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media seems to be still-open though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm appalled. What they are basically saying is that when someone uploads to Facebook with correct attribution and then Facebook (inevitably) uses the content without passing along the attribution that their software will never notice, it's up to the copyright-holder to follow up (presumably by serving legal notice to Facebook). That seems utterly unworkable.- Jmabel ! talk 22:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the part about inevitability and software. Also, although it's probably not a good practice, a contributor can probably make requests about types of reuses they dislike and discourage, if they're not requirements and restrictions. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mnalis: I was to suggest the section "Does it violate the CC license to upload third-party material to social media?" of the page m:Legal/CC BY-SA licenses and social media, but it seems that you already found it. On Commons, restrictions about where to reuse files are not accepted. That has been affirmed several times. You can see for example there and there. In your example File:Malus-Holsteiner-Cox.jpg, the file was uploaded in 2005. The restriction was added in 2015, through this edit. That restriction, as worded, is not compatible with the free license. Technically, the copyright owner ceased to offer this file under the free license (but that doesn't affect any free use that can still be made from any free copy validly made). In your example File:NN Old Fair Cathedral 08-2016 img2.jpg, as you noted, the problem is the use of the logo in the licensing section, which makes it confusing. Perhaps it is an attempt to make the file non-free and actually discourage reuses, while being able to argue that it remains implicit. The image "File:No Facebook.svg" itself has no particular meaning. It is in the category "Anti-Facebook logos", which is in the category "Criticism of Facebook". It can be used in various contexts. What to do with files that display a restriction that is not compatible with free licensing and with the policy of Commons? An option is to ask the copyright owners to voluntarily remove the restriction. If not, the files could be deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated the files in Category:Files by User:Steschke for deletion so that this can be resolved: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files by User:Steschke. Please add relevant opinions there. Nosferattus (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I am confused why anyone would claim that ""a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content" somehow does not conflict with CC license. Are they claiming that uploading CC work would violate FB rules, but not CC license? Rereading it again I see " creates an ambiguity for users who possibly violate the platforms' terms of service when uploading content" but that seems really weak way to describe that anyone uploading CC licensed media definitely violates FB TOC and commits copyright fraud/violation/?? by giving FB licences they are not allowed to give.... Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: I don't agree with what they (WMF Legal) appear to be saying, but this seems like a fair paraphrase: If Person A has released an image under a CC-BY license, and Person B uploads that image to Facebook with the appropriate text and links that indicate the license and credit the authore when reusing a CC-BY image, Person B has not violated the CC-BY license. The violation would come if Facebook then uses the image without such statement of license and credit. This seems to me to ignore or brush aside that under Facebooks TOU, by uploading to Facebook, Person B is granting said "on-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license" etc. They seem to be saying that because Person B has no right to grant such a license, that grant is effectively void (and I guess that much is true) but it seems to me that they are ignoring that part of this reuse is the claim to be granting this clearly void license and that, since on Facebook's end presumably algorithms are involved, not humans, this amounts to an invitation to Facebook to act as if they've been granted such a license. They seem to be saying that is only Facebook's problem (for having a system that may mechanically violate copyright) and Person A's problem (for having to pursue a copyright case against a behemoth like Facebook) and not Person B's problem. In short, that somehow it is not Person A's right to say "don't take an action (uploading to Facebook) that implicitly grants rights to my work that you have no right to grant." Which to me is, as I said above, appalling. - Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe they play a trick that it does not violate copyright by granting license, it breaks FB TOU by claiming to grant license they cannot grant? And describe it as

• uploading CC-BY work with attribution to Facebook is not a copyright violation
• it <<only>> breaks FB terms of use
• and it <<only>> invites FB to break copyright

what seems to me (especially when focusing on first and remaining issues) like traditional lawyerish trickery when dressing it as "uploading to FB is fine" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the (poorly premised) logic. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there is a difference in the legal text between 2.0/3.0 licenses on one hand, and 4.0 licenses on the other hand, regarding additional conditions on a CC license. 2.0/3.0 say "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here." But 4.0 says "Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License." So 2.0/3.0 are clear that any additional restrictions are unenforceable. I'm not sure what the correct interpretation of 4.0 is though; does it mean the same thing or the opposite thing as 2.0/3.0? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Mynewsdesk source where uploader is in fact the author

Hello!

There have been a bunch of discussions regarding mynewsdesk.com as a source, see just these 13 Village Pump discussions. The source is now listed as a bad source and the reason for this is that uploaders that do not own the copyright of a file still uploads it and the automatic CC license is applied - which of course is invalid since the uploader didn't own the copyright hence can't change its license. Anyhow, how should we handle files such as File:Harry Boy.png where the uploader is in fact the copyright holder? On its Mynewsdesk page it says CC license but on the owner's website it says that permission is needed to do pretty much anything with the logo, including displaying it on one's website or anywhere else. Jonteemil (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Is the uploading process in mynewsdesk.com sufficiently transparent, so that the uploader understands that they release the work under a CC license? Ruslik (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I actually don't know. What does Vätte and Axel Pettersson (WMSE) say about this? I see your usernames in the prior discussions regarding this source, and albeit 7 years ago, you perhaps might remember? Jonteemil (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Talk about blast from the past! When I was in touch with MyNewsDesk several years ago they changed the default license for uploads there from CC to a more restrictive licens, but was not interested in asking their customers to check and change earlier uploads or add more information about what the CC license actually means.

For a case like the Harry Boy image I would always trust the original source (atg.se in this case) more, and recommend deleting it from Commons. I tried to check the upload process, but our free WMSE account wouldn't allow for image upload.

I'll reach out to MyNewsDesk again to see if they are up for running some info regarding this now. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for your response. Jonteemil (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

For your information, I created Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:/mynewsdesk.com.se.atg/. Jonteemil (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it trademark-like or unfree?

"Any one can use this logo to represent IRDP YouthMappers in Dodoma and not otherwise."

File:IRDP Main Logo.png

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks like a trademark related restriction. Ruslik (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

If we take the clause as being dual licensing, it is free. If we do not, and I want to use it to illustrate, say, the hypothetical Wikipedia article on "Magnifying glasses in art", the restriction says I cannot, and so it is not free. Note also File:IRDP Black and White.png. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It feels more like a trademark type restriction to me, on what you can do with it in a trademark sense. Illustrating an article is not using it to "represent" something. To me, the statement is just opening up the trademark rights a tiny bit, allowing others to use it in relation to that one entity without asking for explicit permission from the trademark owner. The free copyright license doesn't give anybody any rights to violate trademarks. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

US copyright status for the Survey of India maps

Hi, What's the copyright status in USA for the Survey of India maps, i.e. File:Survey of India, index map, 1-253.jpg. These were published by the British Army, so {{PD-UKGov}} should apply. Also no copyright issue in India. But what's the proper license for US copyright status? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems as if we usually have taken the clause HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide (ref: HMSO Email Reply) to imply that we can disregard URAA restoration for UK-expired crown copyright files. Felix QW (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep, PD-UKGov is the US status as well -- a form of PD-author there. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

A sanity check on the status of US senate and congressional reports

I know that for the UK bills are under the Open Government Licence v3.0 and that in the US works by the federal government are considered in the public domain. That leads to this question, though, as a sanity check: US senate or congressional reports would be considered a "work of the United States Government" and thus covered by Template:PD-USGov, right? I know that the Congressional Research Service explicitly states that its fall under that copyright prohibition, but I am curious about other committees/in general. (I don't have any particular documents in mind, this question just popped into my head as a generality for future reference given how the UK treats bills.) TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I think works funded by the federal government are in the PD, so I would say yes. Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction to what Ymblanter said: works by employees of the U.S. federal government created as part of their jobs are PD, but (for example) works by contractors -- just as much "funded by" the government -- are not. I'm guessing that all congressional reports are PD, but it wouldn't astound me if there were exceptions. - Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes, if US government reports contain copyrighted images, it can be controversial: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.pdf. My personal view is it is OK for us to host government reports that contain small amounts of copyrighted images, uncensored: it is Commons policy-compliant because the copyrighted images comply with the spirit of COM:DM, even if that is not OK for legal compliance, and it is legally compliant because they fall under fair use, even if that is not OK for Commons policy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dmitry-Utkin-passport.jpg

I ask you to join the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dmitry-Utkin-passport.jpg and make a concrete decision in this difficult situation with the file. Thank you in advance! — ArtSmir (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Is this logo simple enough to qualify as below TOO in Germany?

Someone has vectorized logo of bicycle route from Germany - is it safe to upload it to Commons? Or is it complex enough to be a derivative work? See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:VR6.svg Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I plan to upload it, if anyone would review it then and monitors this page: can you do it now to potentially prevent pointless deletion case? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

A series of copyvio

I need a bit of help in how to handle a whole series of copyvio uploads. The uploader calls themselves "Sirene operntheater", which means they cannot be copyright holder (not possible by Austrian or German law, only natural persons can be copyright holder).

In some cases, a photographer's name is explicitly included in the metadata (1), in others, no copyright holder is named so we simply do not know who is the copyright holder.

Can we deal with these all at once, or do we have to handle each one individually? Thanks, --2003:C0:8F09:F400:653B:147E:BF58:6624 14:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Notifying Dornenzweig, who might be able to help clarify. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@2003:C0:8F09:F400:653B:147E:BF58:6624: When you tag a file with "no permission", please remember to add the notification on the talk page of the uploader. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look, and Asclepias, why are you pinging an IP? lol... 20 upper 16:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Didn't ping them. IP users are not necessarily familiar with discussions. This IP has only three edits. Only made it clear to draw their attention to the fact that the second comment was to them, especially since the first comment was more general (and which, yes, I chose to indent also, although strictly that may not be in the indentation logic, but in this case it might make easier the placement of comments by other users in reply to the OP). -- Asclepias (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't these TV titles be PD-textlogo?

I've been recently looking at Title Cards/Logos for various TV series and I noticed they could (imo) be PD-textogo, or the TOO is high for them to move them to Commons? Here are some files i checked over, I'm sure there are many more examples but just picked a varied sample to start this topic:

• Smiling Friends
• Your Pretty Face is Going to Hell
• Ballmastrz
• Unicorn Warriors Eternal
• The Great North
• Infinity Train
• Ben 10 Omniverse and Ultimate Alien
• We Baby Bears
• Penguins of Madagascar (Original Madagascar Logo is already at Commons as PD-Text)
• Fanboy and ChumChum
• It's Pony! (This one is a bit tricky, it's a British produced series which has strict TOO rules but it was first aired in the US and I assume Nickelodeon USA has the copyrights over the series.)

Hyperba21 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

en:File:The Penguins of Madagascar logo.png might be copyrighted due to the 3D effects. It has a similar complexity as the Disney Junior logo, which has a copyright registration (VA0001927957). Ixfd64 (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Probably not at least for We Baby Bears and Infinity Train, if not other logos. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Question about File:NGC 3333 DSS.jpg

I think it's incorrectly licensed, but I think it's freely licensed and I'm not sure which license applies here. It is probably also not the uploader's own work. -- QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 10:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't know enough about the software used, or the nature of the data, to say. If there are enough parameters the user can use to control the output, or they combined data from different sources in a creative way, it's possible there are enough creative choices to create a copyright, in which case the licensing is correct even if the source material is PD. If the base image is basically straight from a PD source, and the software just added the labels, then there is no additional copyright. Would probably need to know the details of the source data, plus what the software does versus what the operator can choose, to give a better guess. The dividing lines at this point may differ by country too, so if there is some doubt the free license may be better than claiming PD-ineligible, even if it may be in some countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Donald Pelletier as uploader. - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue with DSS images is that you have to identify what the original plate was if the image isn't explicitly marked with a license or as public domain. See https://gsss.stsci.edu/SkySurveys/Surveys.htm. Merely being hosted on the STScI / MAST website (just like NASA.gov) does not guarantee the image is public domain. If the plate dataright is held by STScI, it should be fine, but identifying the plate is usually tricky if not downright unavailable. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Connecticut government works

I saw a comment over at en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 July 28#File:Deepsea Challenger with fire damage.jpeg that Connecticut government works allow both derivative works and commercial use. Is there any truth to this? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we allow them. The source discussion has two links; one to their open records law which does not touch on copyright really, and the Harvard state copyright page which gives the status as "yellow". To date, we have only allowed California, Florida, and Massachusetts, which are shades of "green" on that site. I see neither link say anything about using works commercially in a copyright sense. They both do say that commercial use is no reason to deny a freedom of information request, but it's still up to the end user to not violate copyright with their use. One of those decision cases was a list of names and emails, which wouldn't be copyrightable in the first place, so the copyright aspect was irrelevant there. In short, we have no indication that Connecticut is giving up their copyrights. They may be public records, and probably very wide fair use on them, but they may well still be under copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Help identifying an image of Avicenna without license problems

I'm trying to update the template "Philosophy sidebar" on enwiki with an image of Avicenna. However, I've had trouble finding an image without license problems. For example, File:1950_%22Avicenna%22_stamp_of_Iran.jpg lacks a US tag and its not clear that the rationale of File:Qatar_stamp_islamic_figure_(1971),_Avicenna.jpg is justified (see the discussion at [5]). Is there a way to fix the license problems of one of them? Or would File:Avicenna_%28980_-_1037%29.jpg be a better candidate? I'm also open for other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The lithograph by Bauer printed by Ratch (Avicenna (980 - 1037).jpg) is certainly ok. But you can have a better copy of it at the source, or alternatively at Europeana. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll see if I can get it to work. I only need the head anyways so the image we currently have is probably sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I created a new image using File:Avicenna_(980_-_1037).jpg and updated the template, see File:Philbar_4.png. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I have also added the copyright notes for the Iranian stamp and nominated the Qatari stamp for deletion. Felix QW (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Pictures from "lektur.id"

Several pictures from "lektur.id" have been uploaded and I do not see any evidence of { {cc-by-sa-4.0} } at lektur.id. Is this OK? Taylor 49 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you try to ask @Hasif Naufal Ramadan, who uploaded the images? TommyG (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Parliament of Moldova, again.

I get that administrators on Commons are not required to be perfect and as volunteers have limited time to delve into one case or another. But it is so frustrating seeing seemingly double standards applied upon files coming from the Parliament of Moldova Flickr stream, as opposed to similar cases of other countries like Ukraine or the US.

I am talking about this pair of DRs: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Media without a license as of 25 March 2021 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream. Both DRs have been closed with a Delete decision by Nat and Rosenzweig respectively, with two main conclusions:

1. there is no proof that photographer Eduard Bizgu – which appears in virtually all these files' EXIF – would have some kind of contract with the Parliament of Moldova, and therefore we can't be sure the Parliament itself holds any copyright [transferred from Bizgu].
2. Parliament of Moldova is too clumsy about their copyright policy by publishing the same image under different license in multiple places (see example here vs. here), and therefore we can't trust their copyright notices anyway.

As much as I do not agree with this reasoning, I could concede that this is the correct decision per the precautionary principle, and go on about my life. But as it turns out, the same set of arguments are irrelevant for other countries:

1. USA – Commons:Deletion requests/File:A7R09828 (48843493561).jpg – file kept by Missvain because we have proof author is an employee of the government.
   • The same argument made about Moldova has been disregarded multiple times – Special:Diff/550240500, Special:Diff/566296964.
2. Ukraine – Commons:Deletion requests/File:Volodymyr Zelensky 2019 presidential inauguration 39.jpg – file kept by Abzeronow because of a personal opinion, not backed by any proof, that the existence and validity of Ukraine's contract with the photographer in EXIF is indisputable.
   • Rosenzweig did argue that Parliament of Moldova is not consistent about the copyright of their images, by releasing the same image under PD on Flickr but with "all rights reserved" on their website. The same inconsistency can be observed for Ukraine on plenty occasions: e.g. File:Meeting Bodies of Ukrainian Citizens from PS752 in Boryspil International Airport 12.jpg has been published under CC on President of Ukraine's website but with "all rights reserved" on Flickr.

What is so different about Moldova that PCP is applied to it but not to Ukraine and the US? Gikü (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Re the USA case: If a photo is made by a federal employee as a part of his official duties, it is automatically in the public domain in the USA by federal law. As far as I know, that is not the case in Moldova. So there is no ambiguity regarding "CC license or all rights reserved" in the USA (because works are in the PD instead), and that would be the difference between the two cases. I think I've already explained this at some point. Don't know about the Ukraine works, haven't delved into those. --Rosenzweig τ 13:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

My argument on "CC license or all rights reserved" is about Ukraine (point 2). For USA the discrepancy is the "proof of employment" (point 1). Gikü (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In the DR I have closed, I did accept that the photographer was apparently working for the parliament (“Mr Bîzgu does indeed seem to work for the Moldovan parliament that released the photos to Flickr” [...]). --Rosenzweig τ 15:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the US, it's a matter of law that all works created by a government employee in the course of their duties is public domain, there are some nuances there (Department of Energy labs can claim copyright, the Post Office can copyright works published in 1978 or after, etc.). I don't know the finer points of Ukraine but if there is a conflict between a website they control and Flickr, I'd default to the website they control. I'm definitely not infallible and if people think that DR should be revisited, I'd accept that. I also hope Moldova's government will take steps to help clear up this confusion over their works. Abzeronow (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

For a US-gov photo, the proof that the photo was taken by an employee in the course of the employment is sufficient for Commons because the US law states that it is automatically PD in the US. In the case of the Ukraine photo, there is no contradiction on the source page. At the time of its upload to Commons, the photo was licensed CC BY with attribution and copyright to the photographer. Nobody says that it is all rigths reserved, nor that it is PD, nor that the copyright is to the gov. In the case of the Moldova photos, there is a contradiction between the copyright notice by the author and a PD-mark tag by the flickr account. You believe that you know better than the author the status of his photos and the clauses of his contract with the Moldova parliament, but Commons must be cautious and respect the clear statement of the author, unless proven otherwise. It is not an acceptable option to presume that a professional photographer makes false copyright claims on his own photos or that he is unable to correctly set the settings of his own camera. If, contray to what the photographer writes in his notices, you believe that he released his photos to the PD or fully ceded his rights to someone else, the way to prove it is to obtain a declaration by the photographer to VRT. But simply arguing without proof that Commons should ignore the statements of the photographer is not sufficient. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "copyright notice by the author" in the case of the Moldova photos? Having "BIZGU EDUARD" in the Copyright field in EXIF? If yes, I fail to see how this is different from File:Volodymyr Zelensky 2019 presidential inauguration 39.jpg, where I see the same kind of copyright notice in EXIF. Gikü (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It's explained above. In the case of Ukraine, the license is consistent with the copyright attribution. There is no contradiction. No imperious reason to think that something is wrong. (That doesn't mean that there could absolutely not be a mistake, which is always possible in theory, but the fact is that there is no apparent mistake. If someone has a reason to suspect a problem, they can contact the photographer and check.) In the case of Moldova, the PD mark tag is inconsistent with the copyright mention. There is a contradiction. There is necessarily a mistake. This inconsistency requires verification and precaution requires assuming copyright unless proven otherwise. Also, a mistake by some staffer tasked with tagging someone else's work on flickr is more likely than a mistake by a professional photographer about his own copyright. --- Asclepias (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig, Asclepias: So, does this all mean that in case of Moldova the only way to keep these images would be to ask Eduard Bizgu to write to VRT? Can the Parliament as publisher of this media be asked to change something? At least the Parliament can be contacted by official means, but reaching out to Mr. Bizgu as a private individual and asking him to do something for Commons (so that Commons could use "his" work)? Isn't that a stretch? (I argued about this at length on Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream.) Gikü (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Contacting Eduard Bîzgu and obtaining a clarification statement from him is certainly the best thing, if possible. It's not a stretch. Commons users did that with other professional photographers in similar situations. They don't necessarily reply, but if they reply they're happy to help. Even if sometimes the conclusion was that the organization had been violating their rights. They know that it's in their interest to clarify the information. But if it's not possible to find a way to contact him, then, although it's not ideal, we may have to be satisfied with contacting and obtaining a clarification statement from someone speaking for the Parliament. (We could also look if there might be clues at the other client organizations for which he does photo contracts.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We would need some clarifying statement from at least one of those two, preferrably a VRT permission. A clear license statement on the parliament's web site could also be ok. --Rosenzweig τ 20:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

High resolution image of Kamerlingh-Onnes Lab

The AIP's Emilio Segrè Visual Archives has a high resolution image of this image (Kamerlingh-Onnes Lab). The rules on the website says contact API for "higher-resolution image than the 400 dpi", but it was created in 1926. What resolution is 400 dpi? Can we overwrite it with the high quality version? Artanisen (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Yes, that's OK. Yann (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Admin closing deletion discussions that they are a part of

I don't think it's proper (even if it's technically allowed) for an admin to close a non-trivial deletion discussion that they have voted and argued in. It's a conflict of interest at best and an abuse of power at worst. Such behavior does not encourage good faith discussion, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nosferattus:

1. Seems to me in posting this here you should have tagged User:Yann, who is clearly the admin to whom you are referring.
2. If there had been widespread disagreement, I think you would be right, but rereading that discussion you seem to have been a minority of one, so I don't think there is any significant chance any admin would have closed it as "delete" rather than "keep".

Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: 1. Discussions are not votes. So there is nothing illegal to close a DR after having voted there. 2. Your arguments are complete nonsense. There is not any reason to keep it open any longer. Yann (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: Commons:Licensing clearly states "Works which are not available under a license which meets the Definition of Free Cultural Works are explicitly not allowed." And the Definition of Free Cultural Works clearly states "There must also not be any limit on who can copy the information or on where the information can be copied." Thus these files are non-free and unambiguously violate Commons' policy. You may disagree with my argument, but it isn't "nonsense", and your continued characterization of it as such doesn't seem like good faith engagement, nor does slapping it with a boilerplate close. I would like to ask you to reverse your closure and allow an uninvolved admin to close it as you seem to have strong feelings on the matter that have nothing to do with policy. Nosferattus (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Facebook license requirements are not compatible with a CC-BY-SA license, as it was clearly demonstrated on this very page. Yann (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: Again, you are completely ignoring my reason for requesting the deletion (that the images are non-free). It doesn't matter if Facebook license requirements are not compatible with a CC-BY-SA license. Like any website, you can simply generate a DMCA notice and email it to them if they violate your license. They will then be legally required to remove the image. We cannot, however, preemptively prohibit uploading to Facebook, as that violates Commons:Licensing. It should also be noted that virtually every social network on the internet has the exact same wording in their terms of service. Instagram, Pinterest, etc. all say the exact same thing.[6][7] Uploading images to these websites does not, in and of itself, violate the license. It may violate the website's terms of service (depending on the exact wording), but that's a matter between the reuser and the website, not Commons and the reuser. Nosferattus (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, you are saying complete nonsense. Adding a "No Facebook" template doesn't make any free image nonfree. Yann (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: Explain how "It is not permitted to upload this file to Facebook" is not "limiting where the information can be copied".Nosferattus (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Because to me, that clause was not part of the copyright license, or a copyright restriction. It is simply stating that you can't upload it to Facebook without violating Facebook's terms of service, although a better wording is probably possible. The sentence immediately prior, referring to the terms of service, makes that clear. Of course, you are not committing any sort of copyright infringement by uploading to Facebook (provided you credit the author and name the license). However, if someone then uses the image relying on the Facebook terms of service, they could then well be committing copyright infringement (which it's up to the author here to enforce). Informing re-users about this problem seems fine to me. I simply do not take the statement as a copyright-based restriction, which would make it non-free, but instead just informing about other non-copyright issues. Singling out Facebook in particular to that extent does kind of rub me the wrong way, which is likely why the templates were deleted, but that is a different issue. Nothing about the statement makes it seem like a copyright-based restriction which is the only thing that would make it non-free. We can inform users they are not allowed to violate personality rights either, but that also says nothing about the copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a poor interpretation of Facebook's term of service (not a lawyer and not giving legal advice).

To quote the relevant TOS passage:

Permission to use content you create and share: Some content that you share or upload, such as photos or videos, may be protected by intellectual property laws.

You retain ownership of the intellectual property rights (things like copyright or trademarks) in any such content that you create and share on Facebook and other Meta Company Products you use. Nothing in these Terms takes away the rights you have to your own content. You are free to share your content with anyone else, wherever you want.

However, to provide our services we need you to give us some legal permissions (known as a "license") to use this content. This is solely for the purposes of providing and improving our Products and services as described in Section 1 above.

Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy, and share it with others (again, consistent with your settings) such as Meta Products or service providers that support those products and services. This license will end when your content is deleted from our systems.

The contention of this interpretation is that only content that is owed by or (sub)licensable by the FB-uploader can be added to Facebook (according to the Facebook TOS). A particularly tortured reading of this passage would be that FB-uploaders warrant that they own the copyrights to works (or can sublicense them) uploaded to FB which are protected by intellectual property laws.

However, the phrasing is "Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights […] you grant us a […] license to […] your content" (emphasis added). Content that cannot be licensed by the FB-uploader is not covered by this license grant. (Of course, it cannot be.)

The FB TOS anticipates that users will upload content that is not their own:

You may not use our Products to do or share anything: […]

• That infringes or violates someone else's rights, including their intellectual property rights (such as by infringing another’s copyright or trademark, or distributing or selling counterfeit or pirated goods), unless an exception or limitation applies under applicable law.

As long as the FB-uploader has complied with the CC license's requirements in their post (e.g., by giving attribution), the FB-uploader has complied with the creator's license and the creator has no grounds to object to the conduct by the uploader. Additionally, while FB can remove any content they want, they clearly do not interpret the provisions this way.

Note also the CC provision that (quoting again from 4.0):

The Licensor authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications necessary to do so. The Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights, including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures.

Surely Facebook is a "medi[um] […] now known." It is possible to comply with the terms of the license even when uploading to Facebook (since nothing prevents making the required attributions or indications to all downstream recipients). Also, CC clearly does not interpret the license as being incompatible with posting on social media. Nor does the WMF.

This is also without even getting into fair use or anything else beyond the strict text of the CC license and FB TOS.

N.b., FB TOS also says, "If any portion of these Terms is found to be unenforceable, the unenforceable portion will be deemed amended to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable, and if it can't be made enforceable, then it will be severed and the remaining portion will remain in full force and effect." A license grant to some content which the FB-uploaded cannot grant further rights cannot be enforced. However, the license to share the work and pass it on to downstream recipients remains valid, even though the FB-uploader cannot offer some other rights.

The notion that the FB TOS prohibits uploading content not created by the FB-uploader is just a nonsensical reading; a grant of rights to "your content" (n.b., not specifically defined) virtually surely does not cover content created by a third party, and the CC license's distribution rights remain valid and applicable to the FB-uploader and FB itself provided the requirements are met (even though FB does not gain the addition rights it receives when the FB-uploader is the creator and agrees to grant them via the TOS).

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any way to read that that makes sense that limits it to only certain files you upload. What does Facebook gain by getting those rights on certain works that are uploaded to Facebook that aren't tagged in any way? They want to use any work uploaded to Facebook.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It's simple. Facebook requires you to grant a broad license to all the material to which you can grant a license. This cannot and does not apply to materials for which you can't grant a license. There are also elements used under fair use and other exceptions which the FB-uploader cannot license. The license grant applies whenever it can. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

How does Facebook know what content has such a license? If you post a picture of your vacation, did you take it, or did someone else? Not to mention all the stuff a reasonable human could tell whether Facebook has a license, but a computer can't. It's valueless to Facebook unless it covers everything you upload, or at least they can claim it's your fault for uploading something you shouldn't of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think if one tries to read the intent of the cited passage from Facebooks ToS rather than with the "Facebook bad" mindset, a valid interpretation of the passage is that Facebook is covering it's own ass when it comes to using the image to provide the services that makes up what Facebook is and that the user expects from Facebook. F.ex displaying the image in the users feed or in a Facebook group or even publicly available if that is what the user chooses for the visibility settings when adding a post. Facebook need to have a way to show that the user has given them permission to display the post on Facebook in accordance with how Facebook actually works. That doesn't mean that Facebook is going to start collecting all images uploaded to their servers and start a completely unrelated service selling these images as stock photos. This is also not something which is exclusive to Facebook and it doesn't make any sense to single out Facebook since you would find similar or nearly identical passages in any other social media platforms ToS TommyG (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

This is certainly the intention (for FB). In any case, the CC license applies to the downstream user (FB), and attribution, share-alike, etc., requirements for republication do apply to them for whatever reuse they might make — and the notice is made to them. Certainly the uploader to FB who includes the notice complies with the license. Could Facebook potentially violate the terms of the offer made by the FB-uploader and use the work in a way that doesn't align with the license? Yes, they could, as any downstream user could, but that is not on the FB-uploader. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It probably comes down to the interpretation of "your content". If that means content where you own the copyright, or rather simply content uploaded to your account. If Facebook allows you to upload other people's copyrighted works to your account without a sublicense, and are fine with that, then why do they need a license for your stuff? They don't tell you how to distinguish them in any way, really. You may want to license your own content CC-BY alongside someone else's CC-BY and they don't ask for any distinguishing marks. Thus, the question is if Facebook (or other users) assumes they have that sublicensing right on all uploads. They note that content will not be deleted from their systems if someone else started to use it -- where your content has been used by others in accordance with this license and they have not deleted it (in which case this license will continue to apply until that content is deleted). How would "others" tell the difference between content the uploader owns the copyright to, or content which they don't and therefore don't have those Facebooks rights? They should have some way of identifying the difference if they are going to treat uploads differently. The terms never explicitly defines "your content" as relative to copyright ownership, and don't always seem to use the term that way. It may be arguable, but you'd think they would be more careful to delineate the differences if they know they are working under different license situations. It appears in the past there was an explicit definition of "content" which means anything you uploaded to the account. That definition seems to be gone, making it more nebulous, but it may well still mean the same thing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

As a non-involved administrator, I don't see anything wrong with Yann's close. "No Facebook" is a strongly worded request, and it appears that Facebook's TOS is in conflict with a Creative Commons license. Consensus on the DR was to keep the Template as well. the files.Abzeronow (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Abzeronow: What DR? The NoFacebook templates is still deleted: {{Nofacebook}}. And the only review I've seen closed as no consensus to undelete: Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-11#Die_Löschung von Template:Nofacebook rückgängig machen. Nosferattus (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I striked where I misspoke, I only meant to comment on the very recently closed DR. Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh come on! "It is not permitted" is a request??? I'm not buying it. Nosferattus (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

When the license says explicitly that "Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License," then yes. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I concur. A "no Facebook" request is a request, not a license restriction, if a free CC license has been applied. It is, however, potentially significantly misleading. See the CC licenses (text copied here from a version 4.0 license):

• The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or conditions communicated by You unless expressly agreed.
• Any arrangements, understandings, or agreements regarding the Licensed Material not stated herein are separate from and independent of the terms and conditions of this Public License.

D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)