Commons:Village pump/Copyright

↓ 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.

Please note

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.
Have you read the FAQ?
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).
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.
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.

File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg - Copyrighted?

Continued from Wikipedia, File:Abraham Hamadeh 119th congress.jpg was used on a few pages, which I've since reverted since it's unclear what exactly the copyright status is. It's been labeled as an "official" photo of the 119th United States Congress even though it hasn't yet been uploaded on Congress.gov or another official government website, since the 119th Congress has yet to start. It's only been uploaded on Representative-elect Hamadeh's newly-created "official" Twitter account, which leads me to believe that there may be an issue with copyright, and it might not yet be public domain (if it's the official photo in the end), since he's not officially a member of the U.S. government. AG202 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past we have used official images and I have also found this old discussion https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anna_Paulina_Luna.jpg for Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna's official image which the consensus was to keep the image in place. (You can also see that I was around during that and I didn't even remember me taking part of it!) Wollers14 (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me to that, but it looks like it wasn't kept until after she was sworn in. Also, honestly, I don't see that strong of a consensus there on keeping the image before she was sworn in. I see a few comments saying to wait, with some other comments solely giving information. I'd hope that there'd be an official policy on this, hence why I brought the discussion here and not nominated the image for deletion. It's also not just the copyright issue for me, but also calling it the "official congressional photo" without it being posted on an official government website or social media from a current government official. It's also has the author of "Office of Congressman Abraham Hamadeh", even though that office does not yet exist. This would be helpful to explicitly clarify for future situations. CC: Participants in the aforementioned discussion: @A1Cafel, @Curbon7, @Connormah, @Mdaniels5757, @Reppop, @Putitonamap98, @Frodar. AG202 (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the offices do exist even in the physical format. I don't know about the House but Senators-elect are given temporary offices to prepare to be sworn in and take over official duties so they are technically some kind of official as they will also share caseloads of constituent work so it can be completed when the incumbent leaves office and the new member can take it over. As for the images if they were created by the House Creative Services I'd say it is public domain even if not posted by them because they give it to the member for them to use however they see fit such as their government websites when they are created. Wollers14 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy is of the utmost importance here so I'd like to see what others think of this specific scenario before making, though educated, guesses. AG202 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file name used and how the file is described aren't really pressing issues for Commons, or at least not as pressing an issue as copyright status. The caption used on Wikipedia can always been worded to say whatever is encyclopedically correct. What matters most to Commons, in my opinion, when it comes to "PD-USGov" licenses is whether a photo was taken by a federal government employee as part of their official duties. The subject of the photo, where the photo was taken, when it was taken, which website it ends up being published, whether the subject has an official government office or an official government media account/website on aren't really that relevant because the subject of the photo isn't considered to be its copyright holder. You might argue the subject has personality rights, or the file should be renamed, but those things are unrelated to the file's copyright status. So, what needs to be determined is who took the photo, whether they're an employee of the US federal government and whether they did so as part of their official duties. If official photos of newly elected members of the US House of Representatives taken by the House Creative Services are considered "PD-USGov", then the photo should be OK s long as the subject of the photo states as much when posting it online; otherwise, the argument just seems to be that the subject of the photo isn't to be believed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so based on that I think some criteria should be established with these kinds of images when they are posted on social media. Feel free to add points I'm just throwing out suggestions out there. 1. The photo must look like one normally taken by the House Creative Services and 2. The photo is confirmed to be their official portrait by the member themselves. Wollers14 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that I participated in that discussion to say that someone didn't tag their image correctly which is why another, related image was deleted. Otherwise, I somewhat agree with Wollers14, in that there must be a confirmation that it was taken by House Creative Services and is an official portrait. As I recall from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene official photo, 117th Congress.jpg, the image may as well be by a private portrait photographer, which isn't under {{PD-USGov}}. reppop^talk 04:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So there's a way to tell if its done by the House Creative Services because they take their pictures the same way with details such as an American flag in the background and a blueish background along with it. Also to tell if it is by the House Creative Services it can be posted by the member elect on social media. The MTG example you provide was clearly not one done by the HCS as there is no Flag background or blueish back drop. Wollers14 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those cannot give 100% clarity that the image is public domain. there was a period in a time when the House official photos were simply a blue background like File:Greg Lopez 118th Congress portrait.jpg. I don't think that there's a precise way to tell without A. the member being an official member of the government (so that we can assume that it's public domain) and/or B. it's been officially published on House.gov or a similar government-run website. In fact that second MTG photo deletion (also in a blue background with the American flag per archive) is very similar to the situation that we're in right now, and that's why I want to wait until we have official confirmation from House.gov (or a copyright release from the congressman-elect). Again, there's really no harm in waiting. AG202 (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Greg Lopez doesn't have an American Flag behind him nor the traditional blue backdrop. What I'm essentially saying is that you can use the flag and blue back drop to tell or you can email HouseCreativeServices@mail.house.gov for more information. In fact I'll email them to see if we can get answers here. I doubt that they will respond though. Wollers14 (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different photograph thing for Lopez, see File:Gabe Amo 118th Congress Official Portrait.jpg. I see it as a Cleark portait photograph, rather than an official House portrait but it's still under a US Government unit. The best way is for a website to actually host it with metadata, but we would just need to actually get confirmation that it's by a government unit. reppop^talk 08:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best way is to look at familiar details to other images of freshmen in the house such as the previously mentioned above. Also we can call or email the House Creative Services to confirm with them though I imagine it will be hard to talk with them since we are Wikipedia users Wollers14 (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Jameslwoodward's conclusion on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marjorie Taylor Greene.jpg: "Most such images are taken by private portrait photographers because the subjects want the best possible image." If the photograph is hosted on a congressional website, or has metadata that says that it's by a photographer for House Creative Services, then its fine. We just need a way to find out if this is truly a House photograph. reppop^talk 18:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks to both of y'all, but in that case, yeah if we can't get in contact with them and there's no metadata, then imho it's just best to wait and see. AG202 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can reach out to them too just so you know the email is above and they do have a phone number that you can find online Wollers14 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I’ve reached out to the HCS and they said that best bet is to contact the member-elect’s office to verify but the lady I talked to who is one of their directors said that images done by the House Creative Services are public domain so the only way to verify is to contact the office of the member-elect and ask them. So I will reach out and ask Hamadeh’s office and see what I get from there.Wollers14 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to do this, I do appreciate it. AG202 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I also got a response to the email I sent from the House Creative Services and they are saying that the post by Hamadeh (They linked the post) is by them. So I think the image is fine to use. We good now here? Wollers14 (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be fine. Maybe a statement that an email correspondence confirmed that it was by House Creative Services, maybe forwarding via COM:VRT but I'm not sure if that's really needed. reppop^talk 00:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think VRT accepts forwarded emails but perhaps a VRT member could clarify by asking at COM:VRTN. Anyway, even if one's not needed, it might be better to ask the consider sending one anyway because it would be on record if this thing comes up again with respect to another similar image. The HCS could actually word the email to cover not only this particular image, but other images it takes. This could possibly allow a specific copyright license template to developed for HCS images that could be used for its images. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have the names of the people who responded to me. I'm sure they'd be willing to talk if you ask them. You will however probably need to use an email that looks like it came from a real person. I used my real name in my emails to them. Wollers14 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we good to add the image back now that we've cleared this up? Wollers14 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old London street recordings

This archived site incudes a variety of mp3 audio of old London street sounds, made and broadcast from 1935 to 1958, with some commentary.

There are also a pair of 1928 recordings from a gramophone record. One includes an unidentified busker, playing the violin.

Which of the earlier ones are (or will soon fall) out of copyright, in full or even in part (i.e. without the commentary), and be usable on Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing I'm afraid perhaps none can be accepted here as of the moment, courtesy of complications with U.S. copyright. While URAA aimed at artistic works like old photos, sound recordings – even those outside the U.S. that had never been played by Americans' radios, television sets, or computers on the U.S. soil – were given pre-emptive U.S. copyright protection in 2018 courtesy of CLASSICS Act. See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/11#Curious case: non-US sound recordings. For the CLASSICS Act terms, read this. U.S. copyright status dictates the eligibility of all foreign sound recordings, even those that weren't even played in the U.S. up to now, recorded before February 15, 1972. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1928 recordings should be free and clear as far as the U.S. in 2029. Abzeronow (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lim Nang Seng.jpg

Tagged as {{PD-Singapore}}, but would this comply with U.S. PD status as well? According to Clindberg at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Singapore, the term before 2004 was 50 years, non-retroactive. So, 1950+50+1=January 1, 2001, which is perfectly well in PD in Singapore. But as per COM:SINGAPORE, URAA date for Singapore was 1996, and this was caught up by the implementation of U.S. copyright overseas, including Singapore, through URAA. Is this old photo unfree for Commons considering the U.S. copyright? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 16:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether it's used upon governmental purposes, if yes, {{PD-EdictGov}}, but if not, feel free to request a deletion. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings by Betsy Graves Reyneau

I'm specifically concerned about the following images of her painting of Charles R. Drew, of which we have 4 different copies, although there are numerous others, based on her enwiki page:

I chose not to open a deletion debate because I'm reasonably sure they are PD, just not the rationales listed. There are a variety of rationales for why these are PD, none of which are actually valid. We received them from the National Archives, who said we can use them freely, however, and I assume it's because they know it's PD. probably {{PD-not-renewed}}}. But, since I don't know how to check on that, I am not certain that is the case. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 01:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colossal statues of Milk tea in the Philippines

Are the files in the aforementioned category OK for hosting here, or consider those as no different from sculptures? Kindly review and tag the image files accordingly. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any way in which the object in these photos (all three are of the same object) wouldn't be considered a sculpture. I've opened a DR. Omphalographer (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Kay Bergman Grave.JPG

I've got two questions about File:Mary Kay Bergman Grave.JPG. The first is whether this is OK for Commons as licensed or whether it needs to be treated as a COM:DW given COM:FOP US. The second question has to do with the additional text just added to the file's description and whether it could be considered eligible for copyright protection separately from the image itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text and the pictures on the plaque are unfree and so is the transcription within the file description. I've opened a DR. En:wiki might be able to justify using a low-res copy as fair use, and at that resolution the text would probably be illegible anyway. We could host a version here with the big slabs of text and the images blurred out, but I'll leave it to others to decide it there's much point. --Rlandmann (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd call for Commons:Requests for comment/Costumed character files

Since nuanced discussion on COM:Costume is sought. Abzeronow (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-positioned recording devices in Syria and Ukraine

I know there's no FOP in either of the countries (though one could argue DM and below-TOO for some buildings), but what about pre-positioned recording devices (kamikaze drone footage, permanently situated cameras, etc)? JayCubby (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NickK: for some Ukrainian copyright insights. In the US, if those are operated by a human operator or specifically placed in order to record an event, they would be copyrighted. Abzeronow (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. This goes for the fpv drones as well? I feel they'd fall under the same category as bodycam footage, where there is no originality JayCubby (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be affected by COM:HIRTLE#Sound recordings, so they might unlikely be PD in US? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: In Ukraine photographs from pre-positioned recording devices are most likely not copyrighted per Article 8.8, as they are considered photographs that have no signs of originality. For FPV-drones, the question whether there was any creativity involved, if a drone was flying in an unusual trajectory to make a particularly spectacular photo, probably the result is still copyrightable — NickK (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R. I. Pocock.jpg

Is en:File:R. I. Pocock.jpg, published in doi:10.1098/rsbm.1948.0025, "{{PD-US-no notice}}", and can it be imported here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD-US-no notice applies to works published in the US. This is a British publication, and its copyright status depends on whether the photographer can be identified "by reasonable enquiry"
- if you can identify the photographer, this photo is protected by copyright until 70 years after the photographer's death. Somebody who took this photo as a young person in 1947 could possibly be still alive today or only recently deceased.
- if you cannot identify the photographer "by reasonable enquiry", copyright of a photo published within 70 years of being taken expires 70 years after publication; in this case, 2019.

So it hinges on what research you have done to try to identify the photographer. If I were attempting this, I'd start by seeing if I could find this image in any other publication, which might include an attribution (I'd probably start with newspaper archives). I would also contact the Royal Society and ask them. Eventually, if you decide to upload the photo, you can add information about the research you did and the dead ends you hit to the "Permissions" field.

Note that given Pocock's prominence, it's very likely easier to find another image of him that would be easier to clear. And my guess is that the free-use rationale on en:wiki is invalid, given the likelihood that a free image exists that we could use.

--Rlandmann (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeomap License Conflict

Everyone, I apologize; I may have violated the Commons policy and now feel heavily guilted, especially since all the time and effort I spent on Wikimedia for the past month may be undone.

On this site, https://zenodo.org/records/10659112, I uploaded what appeared to be Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) licensed files (published in 2024) from it to the Commons and other Wikimedia Projects (mainly Wikidata and the English Wikipedia), and modified them to transparent PNGs (example file: File:Mollweide_Paleographic_Map_of_Earth,_120_Ma_(Aptian_Age).jpg).

However, there was ANOTHER license (from 2010 by one of the files' authors, Christopher R. Scotese; http://www.scotese.com/license.htm) I never knew about that had restrictions denying its use on the Commons, quoting:

 These maps may not be copied, resold, used or modified in any manner for commercial purposes, such as consulting reports, trade journals or the popular press, textbooks, videos, educational CD-ROMS, computer animations, museum exhibits, web sites on the Internet or for any other commercial use, without the express written consent of the author.

At this point, there are four things I want to find out:

With the files ON THE WEBSITE shown through the CC BY 4.0 license, do they dominate over Scotese’s license? (their apart by 13–14 years of age)
Can all of Scotese’s PALEOMAP files be used on the Wikimedia Projects, or at the very least the ones on the Zenodo website? (As of this message, I emailed him 2–3 days ago, but I’m becoming restless over it and am considering to call him, as his contact information is on his homepage)
For those same files published ON THE WEBSITE, is it really under the CC BY 4.0 license? It feels misleading at this point, and I want to know the truth.
How do you all feel about this, or how do you think I should respond?

Again, I apologize for this misstep that went over my head. Still, it’s better to express my concerns than keep them to myself, right?

(I originally made this message longer, and sent this message to Wikimedia's Discord page before coming here) — Alex26337 (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First; don't panic :) None of us are infallible, and we're all capable of innocent mistakes (even if there's a mistake here at all).

The fundamental principle here is that if the author has validly published their work under a suitable free license, we can host that work here; even if another copy of the same work published elsewhere has a more restrictive license.

This document has the CC-BY 4.0 licence embedded in it, and I think there's no question that the authors of the paper have released it under that license. At first glance, it looks to me like the supplementary materials on Zenodo are also uploaded there by the authors of those materials, although I haven't been able to locate the specific document that File:Mollweide_Paleographic_Map_of_Earth,_120_Ma_(Aptian_Age).jpg came from to verify its license details. Can you please point me to where you found it?

Materials from Scotese's personal site that are not included in his other joint publications can't be uploaded here; their license is incompatible with the Commons. Did you take any straight from there, or are they all via Zenodo?

--Rlandmann (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the files from the Zenodo site only. As for the file's location, look under "4b1. Paleogeographic Maps (Rectilinear).zip" and "4b2. Paleogeographic Maps (Mollweide).zip". — Alex26337 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the paper itself, Scotese et al, 2024, "The Cretaceous world: plate tectonics, palaeogeography and palaeoclimate", Geological Society, London, Special Publications carries a CC-BY 4.0 license notice both within the paper itself and on the Geological Society website that hosts it. The paper also contains internal links to the the archive on Zenodo (along with an archive of similar material for the Cretaceous). The archives themselves do not contain any other licensing material, and the host page on Zenodo carries a CC-BY 4.0 license notice. Any image from within those archives is very definitely licensed under CC-BY 4.0 and can be hosted on the Commons. Where a valid free license exists, we can use that license, even if the same material is licensed under a less free license elsewhere (and whether the less free license is newer or older than the free license is irrelevant). While I'm sure that @Hemiauchenia: was acting in good faith, their advice to you was mostly misguided and incorrect.

(They are correct though that images from Scotese's own website, not licensed anywhere else, are not free enough for the Commons). --Rlandmann (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, Alex26337's uploads basically mirror the entire map content of Scotese's website to which he has explicitly disallowed commercial use. It seems reasonable to ask whether this was something to which Scotese had properly consented. I am grateful for Alex's decision to email Scotese for clarification. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia @Rlandmann: So after almost a week from sending my message to Scotese, I got an emailed message from him saying I have permission to use the maps from the Zenodo website, and that the license at scotese.com applies ONLY to the maps on that website. Would you guys like me to tell you the whole email word-from-word for proof? — Alex26337 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate you reaching out about this. I am willing to take you at your word, but I wouldn't mind seeing the correspondence.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I normally do is forward the email to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT) for the record ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ). You will get a case number in response that you can quote in any further discussions. VRT members are able to view the archived email and verify its contents. When you forward the email to the VRT, include a note to say that this is for the record only and that you're not expecting them to take any action.

More generally, to help anyone wanting to re-use these images and who might want to verify the license, it would also be helpful to note exactly which zip file each image came from; this is not strictly needed for the license, but would definitely make prospective re-users' lives easier. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann: Ok, one question though: I know there are a lot of files hanging on this permission statement, so once I get the verifications settled, is it up to the volunteer team to put the VRT ticket statement in all the image's permission boxes, or myself? Also, if it's up to them, should I mention ALL the files I uploaded to the Commons that connect to the confirmation email in my message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? — Alex26337 (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we don't need the VRT to tag the files -- the license information is right there at the source. There's no reasonable reason for anyone to question it. If you hadn't already reached out to Scotese, I wouldn't have suggested there was any need to bother him, let alone involve the VRT.

So, I'd just forward the email to the VRT as an "FYI" only. The only thing that I would mention on each file is the .zip it came from. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using an artist's images off facebook

I'm sorry if this has been explained somewhere, but I get lost in Wikipedia's jungle of editorial advice. I have created the article Thomas Winkler (artist) and have permission from the artist to use all photos and art by him from his facebook account. How do I go about demonstrating that I have this permission? Many thanks in advance! ˜˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SkaraB: See COM:VRT. We need a specific license from the artist, not just a generic, indirectly passed permission. Most likely he will want to use either CC-BY-4.0 or CC-BY-SA-4.0 and will want to specify how he wants to be credited as an author. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, I will see if I can figure out how that works and what it all means :-) ˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken a look at what you've uploaded so far. Winkler's self portrait and Ahnoff's portrait of Winkler are the simplest cases. To clear these for the Commons, each of those artists would need to provide permission for their image to be hosted here (assuming that Ahnoff still owns the copyright to her photo of Winkler). There's an email template, and also a release generator they could use: here.

The photos of mugs and Christmas baubles are more complex, for two reasons:

because both the art itself and the photographs of the art are subject to separate copyrights
the art and the photographs seem to have been commissioned by Tivoli Gardens. It's possible that Winkler and the photographer (Lassing for the baubles, but maybe the mugs too?) transferred their copyrights to Tivoli Gardens, in which case, they can no longer give the permissions we need; that permission would need to come from Tivoli Gardens. And the only way to know is to contact Winkler and Lassing and ask whether they still own the copyrights or whether the copyrights now belong to Tivoli Gardens.

In all cases, it's really important that artists and creators and copyright holders understand the implications of what they're agreeing to. You say that Winkler has permitted you "to use" his work, but by releasing under a free license, they must understand that this "use" means:

the permission is not just for Wikipedia/Wikimedia, but the whole world
anyone in the world can copy their work for practically any purpose, including making money from the work, or altering the work. So, for example, anyone could just take the baubles designs, edit out the Tivoli name, then print them on their own baubles (or Christmas cards, or table placemats or whatever) to sell without any further permission or need to compensate the artist.
permission cannot be taken back. Once licensed this way, they are permanently giving up almost all control of the work. Technically, they still own the copyright, but are unable to enforce almost any part of it.

So, for a commercial artist, it's a big deal, and few are probably going to agree to such terms for a recent, commercial work. The only way to know is to ask. I'm happy to help with any other questions or clarifications. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for your comments. I had overlooked that images uploaded to Wikipedia can be use in this way – I think I did know it once. So I had taken some of these images from Tivoli's image bank for the press, thinking that if the press could use it so could I. But I see that I was wrong, and I've taken them down.

I've now uploaded an image of five of those cups which Winkler has photographed himself. I can't imagine who would benefit from using those images. Surely if they decided to copy the design onto a cup and sell it, they'd be infringing a different type of copyright – not over the image but over the design? Similarly, if Winkler gives me permission to share a photo of some carrousel with his artwork on it, it doesn't mean that someone can now use his artwork on their own carrousel? I imagine they can make a poster or a postcard of the image or use it in a collage, but the artwork that is depicted cannot be copied and passed on as their property?

Thanks for taking your time, and my apologies if there are things I've misunderstood!

˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean this image -- whether you can imagine how anyone could use the image or not, we still need Winkler to release both the copyright on the photo and the copyright on the mug design (assuming he still owns the copyright; alternatively, we would need Tivoli Gardens to release the copyright on the mug design). Because yes, you're right, the photo and the artwork in the photo are subject to separate copyrights (and we need both elements to be available under a free license).

In your hypothetical example, Winker takes a photo of a carousel with some of his artwork on it. At this point, he owns the copyright on the photo, and presumably still owns the copyright on the artwork, but depending on the terms of his contract with the carousel owner, might not. To host this picture on the Commons, we would need:

Winkler to license the photo under a free license
To check whether he still owns the copyright on the artwork on the carousel, and:

if he still owns the copyright, that he licenses the artwork under a free license or
if the person/organisation that commissioned the artwork owns the copyright now, that they license the artwork under a free license.

The difficulties here are that the Commons only hosts content that is freely usable by anybody for practically any purpose. Normally, when a photographer or an artist gives someone "permission to share" an image on a website, it's a very limited license: in most simple cases, just to use the image on the website. The permission doesn't extend to printing postcards or T-shirts, or any other use, or for anybody other than the website owner to use the image. But hosting on the Commons needs the permission to extend far, far beyond this.

In your hypothetical example, if Winker licensed his photo of the carousel under a free license, but he (or whoever owns the copyright) did not also license the artwork on the carousel under a similar free license, then no, nobody could legally make a poster or postcard of the image.

Finally, a little point, but which might help with understanding: "passing on" somebody else's work as your own would be legally problematic for reasons other than copyright in many jurisdictions and is contrary to the Creative Commons licenses we're discussing here. When I said that creators give up almost all their rights under such licences, the right to be credited for their work is one right they optionally retain. But claiming to be the artist is not necessary for copying. If the artwork on the carousel were freely licensed, then anybody would be free to reproduce it almost however they liked -- for example, a mural painter could include it in a catalog of designs offered to prospective customers: "This one's a design by Thomas Winkler, but it's available for me to paint on your wall." As long as they incorporate a notice somewhere to acknowledge the original artist and the license, they can do this. But they can't claim it to be their own original art. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Cross-posted, without really reading what Rlandmann wrote; he covered some of the same ground, and brought up some different issues.] @SkaraB: let me spell it out a bit more then.

For File:Five mugs designed for Tivoli by Thomas Winkler.jpg, you say the author is "Thomas Winkler for Tivoli"; you probably also want to add that as an attribution for the cc-by-sa-4.0 license. We need an email to the VRT from Winkler himself, granting that license.
For File:Thomas Winkler self portrait.jpg, you say the author is "Thomas Winkler (self portrait)" (which seems a bit odd; I would think it was simplye "Thomas Winkler". Again, you probably also want to add that as an attribution for the cc-by-sa-4.0 license. And again, we need an email to the VRT from Winkler himself, granting that license.
For File:No Wah-Wah.jpg you oddly claim "own work" and say that you are the author. From what you have written here, I assume that is wrong. Once that is corrected, similar considerations arise as for the other two files.

These do not need to be separate emails, just so long as he mentions all the files in question.

By the way, these files all also need categories. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for responding.

From what I understand, if I post a link to Winkler's image on facebook, and he has posted a comment there, saying "I agree to publish this image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence.", the he does not need to email the VRT?

As for the portrait of Winkler, I added "self portrait" to credit him as the photographer. I hope that makes sense.

For No Wah-Wah, it is indeed very odd that it says "own work", but I can't figure out how to change it. I'm not sure if this is auto-generated because I originally filled in that I own this work?

Best, ˜˜˜ SkaraB (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, yes, we would consider such a statement to be evidence of permission. In a case like this, it's a little tricky, because we'd need to be sure whether the license covered just the photo, or the artwork depicted in the photo. So, if you ask him to add such a statement to his Facebook, please ask him to clarify exactly what the license covers. (Taken at face value, such a statement would also place the underlying artwork under a free license, which might not be what he intends! And as discussed above, for commissioned work, permission might no longer be his to give anyway...) --Rlandmann (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. It took me some time to find this thread again, sorry for the late response. I read your longer message and I think I now understand everything. It's far more complicated than I thought, and I think I will advise him to remove his licence statements, given that it is presently unclear if they are even valid. Except for the self-portrait which he created and owns. Meanwhile I've been given some fairly stern warnings, so in addition to me taking them down, they will also be deleted.

Thank you very much for your efforts.

˜ SkaraB (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem and thanks for your patience and understanding here. I just took a look at the self-portrait as well, and in the conversation in the Facebook thread (maybe with you?) Winkler seems concerned about the implications of the CC-BY-SA license, saying it's a little too permissive ("lidt rigelig 'tilladelse'").

Of course, he's already made the license statement in that thread, so technically we could hold him to it, and he has already given away his right to control commercial use of this image. In practice, we try to be a little more lenient on the Commons (a seven-day grace period is common practice) so it would be great if he could quickly clarify what he really wants. (Note that the CC-BY-NC license discussed in that thread is not compatible with the Commons, so isn't an option. Compatible CC licenses are CC-0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA)

And yes, it can be complicated! And especially so in the field of art that you want to contribute to. A good rule of thumb is that if it's an photo taken by anybody other than yourself personally, or any photo taken by anyone of artwork made in the last 100 years or so, expect it to be difficult.

In case it helps, English Wikipedia has a mechanism for hosting a limited amount of non-free content at low resolutions. (This is also complicated, but I'm happy to help you navigate it if you want): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content --Rlandmann (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Navajo Flag copyrighted?

We have many copies of the Navajo flag on Commons. It's from 1968. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States it is possible this flag is copyrighted *if* it was published with notice that it was copyrighted. I searched https://publicrecords.copyright.gov/ for "Navajo flag" and got a few hits [1] [2] [3] but none of them appear to be from the Navajo Nation. Does anybody have any evidence one way or the other whether the flag is copyrighted? Intervex (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it would have been very difficult to retain a copyright for a flag in the U.S. in that era. Each actual flag would be a copy without copyright notice, no? The flag does not contain a copyright symbol. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COM:TOO UK after the THJ v Sheridan decision

Sheridan replaced the old "skill and labour" test (which was applied in Future and Ladbroke, both of which are currently cited on COM:TOO UK) with the new, "more demanding", "author’s own intellectual creation" test. This seems to have a broader reach than just digital reproductions of 2D images, and likely, in my view, means that the threshold of originality in the UK is now much closer to that of the US. But this doesn't seem to have been discussed much, so I don't want to make any drastic changes quite yet. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

I should note that this came up in a DR. (Cc. @DeFacto) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdaniels5757: You're right, but the question is whether the UK courts will continue to apply the new threshold after Brexit because the reason for the change was EU legislation... Gnom (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1928 image with large watermark

I posted this over at WP:Media Copyright Questions and they suggested I ask here instead.

I would like to add THIS IMAGE to the C&O desk article of the desk being used by the Van Sweringen brothers in 1928. The issue is that while the image should be out of copyright a large watermark appears on the picture by the historic society that uploaded it. Does this watermark make the image unusable? Can I upload it then ask for help removing the watermark? Is it not actually out of copyright because of this watermark? Any help would be appreciated. Found5dollar (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Found5dollar:

It is possible that the watermark is itself copyrighted (though elsewhere we've already considered it below the threshold of originality). You'd have to research that. But, assuming it is not:
Whether it is usable is up to the party that wishes to use it. You can upload it to Commons. Just remember to tag it with {{Watermarked}}.
Yes, you can request help retouching it: Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without more information about the provenance of this image, we can't assess its copyright status. There are multiple ways in which an archival photo like this from 1928 could still be protected by copyright. Is there any evidence other than its age that leads you to think it's free? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA-4.0-Picture retouched

Hello,

I uploaded a pict, that was a little bit retouched by me: File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X-foreground-bottom-right-retouched.jpg. Could you please double-check, if my data are sufficient (base is File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X.jpg). In the past I could put in the original file and the fotographer with the upload. If something has to be corrected, please change it and let me know. Thank you very much in advance. Best regards Wikisympathisant (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile I found a better Retouched-brick and categories were automatically reduced, now this topic should be ok. So it remains the question about change of the upload-procedure. KR, Wikisympathisant (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link: File:BMW Vision Neue Klasse X-foreground-bottom-right-retouched.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikisympathisant: looks fine to me. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti in Rome

Hello,
I took several pictures of the building of the Metropoliz in Rome. I know that there is no freedom of panorama in Italy – but at the same time pictures like this one and this one do not seem to have a problem (?)
Here's my question: Can I upload pictures on Commons with CC BY 4.0 of the Metropoliz-building, resembling this one or this one? Meaning: Pictures of the building from the outside with Graffiti on the walls? Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24): I am afraid but the two example photos that are already on Commons would most probably need to be deleted because the graffitis are so prominent in them that they are not permissible under the de minimis principle (in German: de:Beiwerk). What you could do, however, only upload those of your photos where the graffitis are only visible "in the background". We can also help you with this selection if you want. Gnom (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gnom, thank you for the helpful answer. Please take a look at these 3 pictures: 1, 2, 3. I uploaded them after asking Raymond for advice. I understood that they should be ok – are they? Regarding the rest of my pictures, I will try to get CC BY 4.0-releases by the artists for them. Wish me luck :-D --Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24), 3 is definitely fine, 1 should be OK as well, but the design in 2 is most probably copyrighted... Gnom (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnom I thought 2 would be old enough but it is based on the motive of File:We Can Do It! NARA 535413 - Restoration 2.jpg. Per above image description it is not copyrighted in the US. But maybe I am on the wrong side? Raymond (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but I would say that this derivative work of the public domain original is creative enough to be copyrighted in itself. Gnom (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for your review. I am sorry @Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24). Raymond (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, good to know. Will add this picture to the ones that I will try to get a release by the artists for. Thank you, Raymond and Gnom. Kaethe17 (Villa Massimo 24) (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright dilemma in SVG military insignia

I'm interested in uploading self-made SVG versions of the Turkish military insignia to feature in Wikipedia (regiment-level bodies). The issue is that (on the contrary to most countries) the Turkish copyright law does not consider government emblems/works created by pubic servants in public domain. They also don't have licenses on government websites. Therefore, as a Commons newbie, I cannot find any way to legitimately upload such content. Some people I have seen just credited such works for themselves, and claimed they are the sole owners of the work, but I think such an action would not be allowed. Thanks! AscendencyXXIV (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @AscendencyXXIV, unfortunately there is no "trick" that we can apply here, other than hosting any insignia that are below the threshold of originality (TOO). Gnom (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or old enough to be out of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that is a continuation of a discussion at [4]. Please, @AscendencyXXIV, when continuing a conversation in a different, even a more appropriate place, link what has already been discussed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff project for logos

Currently Commons hosts some logos and Wikipedia some others, normally based on copyright status.

Many logos are registered as trademarks and as such published in relevant publications.

Would there be a potential to create a spin-off project for logos to describe and sort them on a fair use basis? When needed, Wikipedia could use them directly.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Enhancing999, please note that you need to distinguish between copyright and trademark protection, which are very different from each other. Because trademark law does not affect Commons, anything that is protected as a trademark can still be hosted on Commons without any problems. However, we need to respect copyright law, and many logos are protected not only as trademarks, but also as works protected by copyright. Gnom (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What problem is this meant to solve? It is rarely difficult to find an online copy of a Wikipedia-notable logo. For those Wikipedias that allow fair use, someone should easily be able to find and upload any given "fair-use" logo when needed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of projects that need to upload it separately, plus there isn't really an advantage of uploading the few that can go here.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there were to be a spinoff project to allow sharing of fair use images across WMF sister projects, I can't think of any reason to make it specific to logos. However, I believe any online repository of unfree material would probably go against WMF policy. As mentioned at meta:Non-free content, Commons is the one sister project that is explicitly forbidden even to set up an "Exemption Doctrine Policy," a policy on conditions under which we would accept non-free content. That is clearly because WMF didn't want to get in the position of hosting non-free media. It's been a couple of decades, and imaginably WMF could be interested in changing their stance on this, but why would logos be a special case in contradistinction to any other non-free media used by multiple sister projects? - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is a spin-off project. I agree this wouldn't fit at Commons, thus the suggestion to start with.

It's possible that the approach is useful for other fields (other projects), but any such project would need a clear scope.

The question here is if this could work out copyright-wise.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maps from New Zealand

Appreciated community: I need your help.

I'm considering upload to Commons this map and this other map. However, I'm confused about the copyright issues.

While in the pages linked they say about these maps that "No known copyright restrictions", the rules of Commons about intelectual property rules of New Zealand contradict these declarations.

What can I do in regards to these maps? Thanks in advance. Babelia (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a very old map. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the first one, the map itself is PD, the images accompanying it are likely also PD, text on the bottom is from 1969. Abzeronow (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the 1808/1812 original of the first map by Laurie & Whittle, which in this form is certainly free of copyright. On the modern map, the kangaroo in the bottom right appears to be inspired by George Stubbs' painting but is sufficiently different as to probably be separately copyrightable. Cook's portrait is after Nathaniel Dance-Holland's official portrait of him, probably also sufficiently different as to be separately copyrightable. It's probably a similar story for the various other images that I either can't make out or don't recognise. The text at the bottom of the map is modern and copyrightable, credited to "A. D. McKinlay, M.A.". New Zealand copyright on literary works expires 50 years after the death of the author. An Arthur David McKinlay published books on New Zealand history between 1933 and 1969. Separately, an Arthur David McKinlay born in 1899 obtained an M.A. from a New Zealand university in 1930 and died in New Zealand in 1977, so could well be the same person. If so, the text will be protected by copyright until 2028.

As to the modern images in the map, it was published in 1969, and New Zealand copyright on artistic works expires 50 years after publication (2020) for anonymous works. So the question is, can we identify the artist? A bit of detective work might be necessary to see if there's any record of who they might have been.

The second map is by the New Zealand Department of Land and Surveys, a government department, today Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). New Zealand government works are subject to Crown copyright which lasts for 100 years. Unless the copyright on this specific map has been released, its copyright will expire in 2075. I note that the copy hosted by the National Library of New Zealand says "This image may be used, copied and re-distributed free of charge in any format or media", which is not free enough for Commons because we need to allow commercial, for-profit re-use as well. You could check with LINZ to ask about the copyright status. --Rlandmann (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact Auckland Libraries to clarify the copyright of the image in question, some of their images are CC-0 which are listed as 'No known copyright restrictions'. There is a form on the file page to do so. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is File:Muwekma Ohlone Tribe flag.png above TOO?

Is File:Muwekma Ohlone Tribe flag.png above TOO in the USA? The picture of the dancer in the middle is from a 1845 painting, so that element of the flag is PD. The shape that the dancer is in the middle of is what I would like feedback on. I leaning towards it being above TOO given the complexity of its colouration and shape, but would like confirmation. Intervex (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that simple geometric design is not original enough and probably falls under the Threshold of Originality. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 22:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also would think that this is below the TOO for the US. Only the texture makes me wonder, but I think even this is probably not enough. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is File:Flag of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.gif above TOO?

Is File:Flag of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians.gif above Threshold of Originality in the United States? The flag features a geometric pattern, but it's a complex one. Its colouring is also complex, with what appears to be shading and small details. I'm leaning to this being above TOO but would like confirmation since I'm uncertain. Intervex (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the design, coloring and shading as well as lettering position make this meet the Threshhold of Originality and therefore copyright applies. It's funny you've picked the two indigenous peoples I'm most familiar with. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 22:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is above the threshold, for the same reasons of complexity that you give. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images from Croatian Ministry of Defence

Is image published by Croatian MoD is can be considered as public domain? for example these images. It's terms of use states:
Copyright © 2008-2023 Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Croatia.
All rights reserved.
Contents from these pages can be transferred without special permission, with reference to the source. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a copyright notice, so it's definitely not public domain.

As to whether it's under a sufficiently free license for the Commons, it's uncertain. The license statement allows images to be "transferred", which I take to mean re-published as-is, but it's not certain (to me, anyway), whether modification of the images is permitted, which we require for the Commons. There's an email address on the page, so it would be worth getting in touch with their media team to verify that edits and alterations to the images are permitted. Please forward any response to the VRT ( permissions-commons@wikimedia.org ) for the record. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlandmann: Thank you for your suggestion. I've sent an email to the media team of Croatian MoD as suggested.

I asked here because I've seen other contributors upload images from their website, but the vague terms of use leave me unsure if these are compliant or potential copyvio. I'll forward any response I receive to the VRT for documentation. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about the copyright tag for File:Flag of Mohawk Warrior Society.svg?

So this flag is much older than Creative Commons, and the license appears to have picked by user who made the SVG version. I'm not sure it's the right copyright tag for this flag though.

You can read about the flag's history here: [5]. It was first made by Karoniaktajeh Louis Hall in what is considered Canada, but the flag is in protest of Canadian colonialism. It feels inappropriate to try and apply Canadian copyright law to it. (It is recent enough and above Threshold of Originality that by default it would be copyrighted in Canada.)

Hall died in 1993. In his will, Hall left the original paintings to the Warrior Society in Kahnawake (see link above). Kahente Horn-Miller from the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake has gone on record saying [6]:

"This image may officially belong to the Men’s Society of Kahnawá:ke but it is meant for everyone to use. If someone sells a t-shirt or a pin with the image on it, so be it. If someone uses aspects of it to communicate their own message, so be it. Copyright and exclusion are the antithesis to this flag’s meaning. Karoniaktajeh would be happy to see that the message of unity is spreading further, as he intended it to."

I'm not sure what copyright tag would be most suitable for this flag. It certainly seems intended to have a free license, but I can't find any writing online from Hall that spells out any terms of use. Creative commons seems anachronistic. Suggestions? Intervex (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The various CC licenses are specific in nature, and so only the person who owns the copyright to a work can place it under these licences. That is, even if a copyright holder specifies terms that overlap completely with CC-BY (for example), it's not actually CC-BY unless the copyright holder says it is.

The questions, as I see them are:

is Dr Horn-Miller empowered under either Canadian or tribal law to make this statement on behalf of the Men's Society of Kahnawá:ke?
The statement as supplied says that free re-use without further permission is OK, does not ask for attribution, and specifically allows commercial use, but it's not clear to me whether derivative works are allowed. Are they? (Keeping in mind that permitting such use would also permit disrespectful or disparaging use)

I would start by contacting Dr Horn-Miller for advice, and the question might ultimately be one for the Men's Society of Kahnawá:ke directly.

Assuming there really are no restrictions on use, then {{PD-because}} is probably the best fit we have, together with an explanation of the rationale. I'd also forward all correspondence to the VRT to keep on file. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that "uses aspects of it to communicate their own message" could be sufficient for allowing for derivative works, if this is a valid granting of license in the first place, especially with the final phrase that supports a reading that releases the flag into the public domain. Felix QW (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On re-reading, I agree with you on the derivative work question (although clarification would be nice). --Rlandmann (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

en:File:Mariya_Petrovna_Nesterenko.jpg

Is there a way to keep track of files like this, which will enter the public domain in 2031/2 (author died in 2006)? JayCubby (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JayCubby: Hi, Died in 2006? So you probably mean that it can be restored in 2077. It can be added in this page. Yann (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd also add to it the Undelete in 2077 category, why did you think it would be restored in 2032? Abzeronow (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The USSR has a copyright term of life + 25 years, though the US has life + 70 years (I may have forgotten about the US aspect...).

A second question:

I don't have a lot of experience with the Hirtle chart, but could it be PD due to formality issues in 2031. JayCubby (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Russia extended copyright a few times since the USSR, COM:Russia, Russia is now Life + 70 (with a 4 year extension to those who worked during the en:Great Patriotic War (term).) Abzeronow (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! That probably settles the affair then. JayCubby (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was never on Commons, I don't think we usually track that. But, yes, Category:Undelete in 2077 is where we would track that if we do. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images from New Zealand Archives with improper licences

Many images have been transferred to commons Category:Images from Archives New Zealand from the Archives New Zealand Flickr account: [7] and all of these images are licenced as CC BY 2.0. The problem is this licence is innacurate, many items are PD and many items are copyrighted despite the tag uploaded.

There are almost 10,000 files uploaded from this account (assuming they are all in the category, some might be uncategorised), pretty much all are incorrectly licenced and many are copyright violations. For a very obvious example I had: File:International Literacy Day (15068363802).jpg deleted. The photo can be seen here: [8] The New Zealand Archives may have a copy of the book in their collection but they obviously do not own the copyright to it, which belongs to the publisher/author still.

Correctly licencing these images will be a very tedious task but in the meantime I think it would be good to disallow automated uploads from the Flickr account as the licences provided cannot be trusted. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament of the 10th parliamentary term

There are 662 files in Category:Official portraits of Members of the European Parliament of the 10th parliamentary term, seemingly all uploaded by User:Jcornelius @Jcornelius: .

They are all drawn from https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/

Webpages such as https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/en/photo/irish-meps-official-portraits-10th-parliamentary-term_20240617_MULLOOLY_Ciaran_IE_009 indicate that only an attribution is required for these images to be used by the public.

However, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legal-notice/en/ contradicts this, stating As a general rule, the reuse (reproduction or use) of textual data and multimedia items which are the property of the European Union (identified by the words “© European Union, [year(s)] – Source: European Parliament” or “© European Union, [year(s)] – EP”) or of third parties (© External source, [year(s)]), and for which the European Union holds the rights of use, is authorised, for personal use or for further non-commercial or commercial dissemination, provided that the entire item is reproduced and the source is acknowledged. However, the reuse of certain data may be subject to different conditions in some instances; in this case, the item concerned is accompanied by a mention of the specific conditions relating to it.

This very, very unfortunate line of text suggests the images on www.europarl.europa.eu may be under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives license.

Which view is correct? Are these files under a useable Attribution license, or are they under a Attribution-NoDerivatives license?

Does EU law supersede the legal notice at https://multimedia.europarl.europa.eu/?

I would love for it to be the case that these files are usable but I myself was previously told they are not. CeltBrowne (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The general legal notice with its ND term explicitly says that it is "a general rule". And even if it didn't, for any given page or piece of content, I would always privilege its own specific notice over a more general notice. Consider the alternative: if the general rule says that generally re-use is OK, but we found a piece of content marked "all rights reserved", we would not think that the general rule covered it.

In this case, I think the image you've linked and any like it are attribution only. As usual though, if in doubt, I recommend contacting the copyright holder or publisher for clarification. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]