Commons:Village pump/Copyright

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

Shortcuts: COM:VP/C • COM:VPC

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump copyright section

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

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

Start a new discussion

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


A category with a Romanian FOP problem[edit]

The category Category:Church of the Transfiguration of Christ at Slătioara Old Calendarist monastery contains pictures of a building in Romania, where no FOP exists. I have no information as to when this building was built, or when the paintings on it and the paintings it contains were first painted. The only think I am sure is that the paintings of Glicherie Tanase as a saint are likely from after his canonisation by the w:Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania in 1999.
What are your thought on this? Should all the pictures in the category be deleted? Veverve (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Musichistory2009 as the originator of that category.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles on the monastery in Romanian and Russian Wikipedia at w:ro:Mănăstirea Slătioara and w:ru:Слэтьоарский монастырь. Google translation of these indicates that it was first built in 1947 and was substantially rebuilt and extended in 1978 to 1982. The architect does not seem to be named. The building is unlikely to be public domain and freedom of panorama does not apply. The photographs of the building should be deleted. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. and Verbcatcher: I think I will nominate all the images in this category for deletion then. Veverve (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright rules/tags for old Canadian newspapers?[edit]

The Internet Archive has scans of a particular Canadian newspaper ranging from 1858 to 1947. I'd like to upload at least one of these scans to use in the corresponding Wikipedia article, but it's not clear to me which issues would be considered PD, and what the appropriate license tag would be. COM:CANADA gives the rule "life of the author plus 50 years", but it's not clear how to apply that in this case. The newspaper collects the work of many authors - most articles are not attributed to a named author, but some are. So would it be 50 years plus the life of the last known surviving author? Alternatively, Template:PD-old-assumed says that when the date of an author's death is unknown, date of publication + 120 years is safe to use as a proxy for death + 70. So does that mean date of publication + 100 years is suitable for Canada's rules? (i.e. any Canadian newspaper or other collective work published before 1901 can be considered PD?)

COM:PD also says If the work is anonymous or a collaborative work (e.g. an encyclopedia), it is typically in the public domain 70 years after the date of the first publication. Is that relevant here?

I was able to find a couple previous discussions about copyright of newspapers, but only for other countries:

Colin M (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here are a few examples of extant files which are scans of non-ancient Canadian newspapers. Most of them just use a generic {{PD-Canada}} license tag, which I'm not convinced is actually appropriate (since in none of these cases has the uploader identified the "author" of the original work and provided evidence of their year of death):

  1. File:Odd Pants.jpg
  2. File:Ore Chimney Mine Article in Toronto Financial Post 1924 (16430247222).jpg
  3. File:1910-01-03 The Globe front page election returns.png

Colin M (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you can upload any newspaper published before 1926. You can use {{PD-old-assumed}} and {{PD-US-1923}} tags for them. For later publication dates the situation is more nuanced. Ruslik (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But pre-1926 isn't old enough to satisfy the wording of {{PD-old-assumed}} ("the date of creation of the work was over 120 years ago"), and {{PD-US-1923}} only applies to US copyright, but I thought it was necessary that the item be PD in the US and its country of origin? Colin M (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this should be a combination of {{PD-Canada}} along with {{PD-US-expired}} or {{PD-1996}}, not {{PD-old-assumed}} (though that can be used for pre-1901 newspapers I guess). These works are definitely published, so a lot of the "unknown" goes away. If there is a human author named (on the text), the Canadian term is 50pma, and if not, they are anonymous and it was 50 years from publication. Those would have needed to expire before 1996, of course, which means death or publication before 1946. If we can't find the date of death, that is where the PD-US-assumed might come in. The 120 years was partly based around a 70pma assumption, while Canada is 50pma. It was also partly based on a clause of U.S. copyright law -- but in this case, anything pre-1926 (and soon, 1927) newspaper is guaranteed PD in the US no matter what, so that part is moot. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Signed articles are under a copyright in Canada for 50 years after the author's death. Non signed articles may get into the public domain in Canada 50 years after the first publication. File:Odd Pants.jpg is certainly OK. File:Ore Chimney Mine Article in Toronto Financial Post 1924 (16430247222).jpg is probably OK (I don't see a signature). Regards, Yann (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also if the Canadian copyright expired before the URAA date (1996?), the document will also be in the public domain in USA. @Clindberg: Can you confirm that? Yann (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right. This would largely limit things to newspapers published before 1946, but it sounds like that is most of them. Articles by named authors would only be PD if that author died before 1946. On the other hand, all photographs (if author is named or not) would have expired, since those were 50 years from creation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the scan includes text or a photograph that was first published outside Canada then the copyright laws of the country of first publication would probably apply. For example, this might affect articles on the coronation on King George VI in London in 1937. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe Stock free section images[edit]

Hello all, hope you're having a great day-

I want to discuss about Adobe Stock. Now, this website have a free images section, and most of them are licenced under their Standard Licence. This licence allows us to-
1) Unlimited web views
 2) Use the asset in email marketing, mobile advertising, social media, or a broadcast program*
3) Can modify the asset*
4) Up to 500,000 prints of the asset
However, we are not allowed to-
1) More than 500,000 prints of the asset
2) Asset may be used in merchandise, templates, or other products for resale*
Now, the million dollar question is- Are images in this stock website acceptable for Commons. Please respond. --Contributers2020Talk to me here 03:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Contributers2020: No, because the images may not "be used in merchandise, templates, or other products for resale".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, both of the conditions in the "not allowed" make it non-free by the definitions of https://freedomdefined.org . Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Clindberg and @Jeff G. for helping. Contributers2020Talk to me here 02:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Contributers2020: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images at DYK[edit]

We had a recent Main Page appearance at DYK of

Which was pulled because non-free can't appear on the Main Page. We're having a discussion here about whether the can represents free rather than fair use. We could use input from someone who actually knows what they're talking about, which I don't. Thanks for any help! Valereee (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Deleted. Clear derivative work of the packaging. Yann (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or not-so-clear example of a non-derivative photo, in line with the Ets-Hokin decision that a photo of a bottle would not be derivative of the label, unless focusing on the label. In this case, just the artwork around the beans themselves would be copyrightable I think; there isn't a whole lot else. And I'm not sure the photo is focusing on that part. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
lol... Valereee (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold of originality?[edit]

Is this above or below Commons:Threshold_of_originality? Opinions? -- Wesha (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends which country's law is applicable. The logo is below the US threshold, but it may be above the threshold in the UK. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's a logo of an American company, I would assume US? -- Wesha (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, it's on par with image:Graceland_S_logo.svg which has attached document from the Copyright Office which denies copyright, and thus oughtta be safe to upload. -- Wesha (talk) 07:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query about 2D status[edit]

During a Wikipedia FAC for the article about the Umayyad caliph Muawiya I (d. 680 AD) the permissibility of this photograph of an ancient inscription, File:Greek Muawiya inscription of Hammat Gader, 663 AD.png, was raised by a reviewer. Another reviewer proposed that it may be considered two-dimensional and presumably permissible. The photo was taken in 1980 under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority, an Israeli government dept. Not being sure, I removed the image pending further clarity. Could this image be considered 2D, and if so, permissible for us to use in the Muawiya article? The article will appear on the Main Page early next month. I was hoping to clarify the status before then. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. —Al Ameer son (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the status of the photo itself, but I am fairly certain the plaque can be freely re-drawn in Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop as the plaque is undoubtedly {{PD-Old}}. -- Wesha (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the past we have treated low-relief or bas-relief, as two dimensional, especially when the shot is perpendicular to the plane of the object, like we do with coins. --RAN (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Thanks. I believe this image would qualify as low-relief or bas-relief. I will add the image back to the article with the appropriate licensing. If an objection is raised then we could resume discussion. In the meantime, Wesha, I have also made a request to re-draw. Al Ameer son (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this good to upload (i.e. is it in the public domain)[edit]

Hi, I'm a few months new to Wikipedia and very new to this process. Naturally, I'm keen to make sure I get this correct.

Is this document suitable for upload (i.e. (I think) is it public domain)?

https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/economic_geology_series/16-1962/egs_16.pdf

In summary, it's a 1950s Canadian government technical document, currently shared via a Canadian university.

And in case this is confusion the chain of events that got me here is: 1 - I created this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_the_Bancroft_area It includes long quotes from this document because it's very technical stuff and I cannot summarise it. 2 - Someone pointed out that the Wikipedia article relies too heavily on quotes and the tag suggested I use WikiSource 3 - When I asked about that here https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help someone said I should share it with Wikimedia commons. I'm a bit confused.

CT55555 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah. It should be fine to upload here, though you'd be surprised by how old some works need to be.
Longer answer... Wikipedia is for original encyclopedia articles. Using raw, technical wording to describe a concept can be a bad idea -- if there is a way to reword the source material to make it more accessible, that is preferred (but of course all the details and facts must be present in the source material -- you can't editorialize). If most of the article is just a repeat of the source text, then the article isn't adding a lot of value over the original. Wikisource then is a sister project, where the idea is to transcribe primary source documents page by page, so it can be there as a reference (and possibly serve as a translation platform to other language wikisources). You can then provide a link to the Wikisource sections, rather than copying lots of the text. Wikisource in turn prefers that the source PDF or Djvu file with the actual scans be uploaded to Commons, for widest possible use. That of course mean the work has to be public domain in the U.S. and the country of origin -- though English Wikisource at least can host files locally on that project, if they are PD in the US only. In this case thankfully, that document qualifies as {{PD-Canada-Crown}}, so it should be fine to upload on Commons under that tag. What you do with it at that point is up to you -- if your goal is mainly to get that document more widely available, it may make sense to learn Wikisource and get all of the text up (or just the text you are interested in). If your goal is primarily to write that Wikipedia article, you may still need to write some summarizing text, and just use the PDF as the source reference. Uploading the PDF to Commons makes it easier to use no matter how that turns out, so yes upload it here first. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great shearwater and plastics pictures from paper[edit]

May the pictures of a great shearwater and plastics from Figures S1 and S2 [1] (CC-BY) be uploaded here? If so, may I ask someone to do so? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 46.140.3.202 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Webcam images[edit]

Hi, Are these images OK? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sokół wędrowny przy gnieżdzie na Pałacu Kultury i Nauki w Warszawie.jpg, already deleted. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sokoły wędrowne gniazdo Pałac Kultury i Nauki w Warszawie.jpg, not deleted. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the Deletion Request starter, my concern is that there is no evidence that the uploader (User talk:Wolnaencyklopedia) is the copyright holder (which is presumably the Pałacu Kultury i Nauki w Warszawie [Poland]) - MPF (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was decided earlier that, in some cases, webcam images don't have a copyright. Yann (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So "webcam" is a term that has multiple meanings. The case being discussed is more of a security camera, and I think it depends on whether the person who placed it demonstrated creativity; I've seen DRs go either way. Regarding the other form of webcam that people use to broadcast themselves during a videoconference, per meta:Wikilegal/Copyright in Zoom Images the webcam operator does not have copyright because they are not fixing the video in a tangible medium; the person who takes a screenshot holds the sole copyright. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Power distribution maps[edit]

User:Rosettaanalytics has uploaded 17 Australian Power distribution maps (see File:WesternPower Network.png as an example) sourced from https://networkmap.com.au/. Apart from carrying the logo of the provider I don't think their lengthy Terms and Conditions allow such a thing. Additionally, the maps are actually based on Google Maps. I pretty sure, despite their usefulness, these are copyright violations but would like a second opinion please. Should these be nominated for speedy deletion under "Report copyright violation" or should they be tagged as "No permission"? Calistemon (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their terms and conditions don't matter when they are actually claiming to be the copyright holder (who can do whatever they want with the image), so "No permission" is correct here. The Google Maps COM:DW angle is also important, but that can perhaps be sorted out over COM:VRT or via editing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, done, "No permission" tag added to uploads. Calistemon (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

标准地图到底能不能传？[edit]

我看这里的讨论迷惑了。https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PRC-StandardMap --Qa003qa003 (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qa003qa003: 如果地图是官方正式文件的一部分，可使用{{PD-PRC-exempt}}并指出出自哪个文件并提供来源；如果纯粹只是地图，请不要上传。--Wcam (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Lyotier[edit]

Greetings. I am coming here per a recommendation at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions. I am trying to see if this image from Flickr link here, would be covered either under OGL-BC or any other PD license that would allow for us to use the image on the article. Appreciate any leads. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktin (talk • contribs) 22:50, 23 December 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Ktin: Hi, and welcome. I'm sorry, but the license restrictions -nc- (noncommercial) and -nd- (no derivatives) are not usable by themselves for Wikimedia Commons. For the reasons, please see Commons:Licensing/Justifications.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks much. I suspected as much. Was hoping that due to the Flickr account being the province's account, there might have been some linkage to a province OGL. But, apparently, not. Thanks for checking. Ktin (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktin: You're welcome. That OGL-BC license is quite specific.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:BCCI Crest.svg[edit]

Can Commons keep File:BCCI Crest.svg file as licensed? The threshold for originality for India seems to be closer (at least these days) to that of the US than it's to that of the UK; so, if this would be {{PD-logo}} in the US, then there's a good chance it would be also PD in India. The same logo was uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content back in 2010. If the Commons file is OK, a local non-free file would no longer be needed for English Wikipedia use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PD-US-no notice Jerry Leahy press photo[edit]

Would this press photo of en:Jerry Leahy be OK to upload to Commons under a {{PD-US-no notice}} license? The photo was taken in October 1956 and there doesn't appear to be any copyright markings anywhere on the back of the photo (though it could be behind the newspaper clipping I guess). The photo is heavily watermarked though and I'm not sure whether that makes a difference. If the watermarked file is PD and can't be used for some reason, then perhaps this lower quality version uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content could be converted to PD since it appears to be the same photo that it supposed to have be published in the en:Fort Collins Coloradan in December 1956. Even if there is a copyright notice behind th clipping, maybe this could possibly be uploaded as {{PD-US-not renewed}}? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a wire photo, or a photo distributed by another company? I'm not sure that wire photos, printed out privately by newspapers and stored internally (though possibly sold on the market many years later), would count as PD-US-no_notice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

too simple can i export?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Isfahan_government_logo.svg Baratiiman (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FOP Moldova seems to not limit 2D works[edit]

While FOP Moldova currently states that buildings and sculptures are only allowed, closer reading and interpretation means that even 2D works are allowed (murals for example), as long as these are "made to be located permanently in public places":

Law No. 139 of July 2, 2010, on Copyright and Neighboring Rights (as amended by Law No. 212 of July 29, 2016), Article 28(k):

  • k) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;

The wording seems similar to both COM:FOP Portugal and COM:FOP São Tomé and Príncipe, in which both architecture and sculptures are enumerated as among the works, not as exclusive works falling under Moldovan FOP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Copyright&oldid=616340492"