Commons:Village pump/Copyright

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

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

Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Please note

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

Start a new discussion

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

Copyrights owned by the Australian Archives

This 1956 Australian image is kept here as a government image, whose copyright expires in 50 years and which is considered unaffected by URAA restoration. It is sourced to the National Library of Australia, here. However, the only evidence I see of it being a government picture is that the National Archives own the copyright. Is that sufficient evidence for eligibility for {{PD-AustraliaGov}}? This would also affect other images from that source, so I wanted to bring it up here. Felix QW (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks to be an official portrait of an Australian premier, which is highly suggestive of it being a government work originally, and the archives owns the negative. Hard to imagine that not being Crown Copyright. I would expect they would have records of any external source it was donated from. If there is a specific indication it came from somewhere else, it could be reason to bring them up, though I think part of their law (maybe a recent change) indicates that even copyrights later transferred to the government get Crown Copyright status after that. So the fact they own the copyright may indeed by itself make this tag valid. Their law (section 180) states that the Crown Copyright duration terms apply when the Commonwealth or a State is simply the "owner" of a copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, thank you very much! I noticed the phrase "owner of the copyright", but I was unsure whether that would include copyright transferred to the government after creation. Felix QW (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Copyright Zoe Meyer (english, german an portguguese article)

Here a picture is available. It was published with "Nutzung unter CC BY-ND 3.0 DE, bitte ausschließlich zu redaktionellen Zwecken. Credits: Grüne im Bundestag, S. Kaminski" (see same page at "weitere Infos"). Is it legal to upload the picture? Carolus requiescat (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Carolus requiescat: It's not illegal, but "ND" restrictions are not acceptable on commons. See Commons:Licensing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, unfortunately I am not that familiar with Commons and it´s rules. Carolus requiescat (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

A vision for 2020

I have a small collection of work I'd like help revising. I don't know how all this works yet. Let me know if anyone is interested. Thank you 2603:6080:EE40:1BD:2867:64D:BDB6:CE02 03:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

To attract volunteers, you will have to be clearer on the type of help you need. Is it to revise some file names, file descriptions, licences, categories or do you need help with photo editing? From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Targaryen sigil files

Can anyone request the mass deletion of the files in this category (except the original ones like A and B)? They are either copies or derivatives of the design created by HBO for Game of Thrones (the Targaryen article on Fandom wiki explains it. Click on the image and then on "More info"). Enaldo(discussão) 12:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@EnaldoSS: Hi, and welcome. I did that for you in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Coats of arms of House Targaryen with VFC. You may do so yourself next time.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Enaldo(discussão) 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@EnaldoSS: You're welcome!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Licensing of photographs from Poland taken before and during WWII

I've just created an article on Bela Hazan, who acted as a courier for the Jewish resistance during WWII. There are some images that I would like to be able to use in the article. They can all be seen here, the group of three couriers, Bela Hazan's mugshot from Auschwitz and the family photograph. Looking at another example, File:Frumka-Plotnicka.jpg, it uses two license templates "PD-Polish" and "PD-anon-70-EU". Would these be appropriate for the three images that I'm interested in uploading? Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify I should note that all the photos were taken in Poland as it was then but the first was taken in Grodno (now part of Belarus), the second at Auschwitz (still Poland) with the other almost certainly taken in Rozhyshche (now part of Ukraine). Mikenorton (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Change of question as it seems that all three are already on Commons - see File:שלוש הקשריות.jpg, File:Ktystyna Kossowska 24453 - high resolution.jpg and File:משפחת חזן.jpg but the licensing used doesn't seem to match what I know of their origin. So the question now is, should I update the licensing using the templates that I suggested above? Mikenorton (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

If we know they were published in Poland, {{PD-Poland}} is probably what you want. I thought Poland restored photographs to EU norms, but I'm not entirely sure. But Poland's general term for anonymous works was 50 years until 1994, so pre-WWII stuff is usually fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, although I'm not sure what published means for instance for a photograph taken by a Gestapo officer, presumably the date it was first printed? Anyway I'll make the changes. Mikenorton (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The term "published" can indeed be quite tortured, and differ by country. For PD-Poland I think it only matters for the U.S. definition at the time, which is itself difficult to define and can be based on judicial circuit, but if copies were given out beyond immediate family (and copies given to a family by a professional photographer may well count), it likely was. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that's mostly reassuring, which is the best I can hope for I reckon. Mikenorton (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Crosswiki transfer license check

It looks like File:Apidej Sit Hirun.JPG was transferred to Commons from Thai Wikipedia in 2014 but the th:File:Apidet 01.JPG no longer exists and there no other information provided to verify that this has been released as licensed. Since en:Apidej Sit-Hirun died in 2013, this photo couldn't have been taken on 6 September 2014, and this blog shows a similar photo probably taken roughly around the same time. It's possible this could be PD per COM:Thailand, but I'm not sure. Any opinions on whether there's a way to keep this or does it need to go to COM:DR per COM:PCP. FWIW, the uploader hasn't edited on Commons since mid-December 2023, but does appear to be active on French Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe one could ask at the Thai Wikipedia embassy for an administrator to access the deleted revision and see whether it contained any valuable information on the license? It may well just have been deleted because there was a Commons duplicate, thereby accidentally cutting off the information trail.

{{PD-Thailand}} could be tight anyway, as it would require pre-1972 publication, and it would in all likelihood be protected in the US by URAA restorations for many years to come regardless of its current status in Thailnad. Felix QW (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

License template for PD-1996-95 y.o. non-US publications

How can I describe works published in other countries between 1929 and 1977 with copyright restored in US by URAA, but wich are now in Public domain in US because this works are 95+ years old? For example this work, published in 1920 in Lithuania, author died in 1952, so it was not PD in 1996, but it is both PD for Lithuania (70 years after author's death) and US (95+ years old publication). Plaga med (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, {{PD-old-70-expired}} is the right license for this case. Yann (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

{{PD-old-auto-expired|1952}} would be even better. --Rosenzweig τ 20:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

So I don't need to show explicitly why it is PD in US after 1996? Plaga med (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You do, but that is precisely what the "expired" part of the tag does. Felix QW (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Now I understand, thank you all! Plaga med (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Phố đi bộ Nguyễn Huệ trong sự kiện HIFF 2024.jpg

Is this fall under COM:FOP Vietnam? Phương Linh (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Upload free icons to Commons

Hi, I checked this URL [1] and found they are free to download, so is it possible to upload them to Commons? PS: some icons are really helpful for demonstrating content in Wikibooks or Wikiversity.  A l p h a m a  ^Talk 03:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)